Back
2023 MarsdenLR 2859
SESSION COURT SHAH ALAM
SUTHAN PANCHADCHARAM – Appellant
Versus
ISHA EDUCARE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-B52NCC-99-07/2023]
Judicial admissions in pleadings establish the basis for summary judgment when the defendant fails to contest the debt, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14, Order 24 - Summary judgment application - Plaintiff sought recovery of debt of RM838,672.54 from Defendant, supported by auditor's confirmation and financial statements - Defendant's failure to contest the debt or respond to demand letter constituted admission - Court found no triable issues warranting a full trial - Summary judgment granted with costs of RM5,000. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 53)
(B) Judicial Admissions - Admissions in pleadings are formal and cannot be easily explained away - Judicial admission by Defendant on debt owed established basis for summary judgment. (Paras 36, 37)
(C) Burden of Proof - Upon establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Defendant to show why judgment should not be given against them. (Paras 51, 52)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed RM838,672.54 from the Defendant, a previous director, based on an auditor's confirmation and unchallenged financial statements. The Defendant admitted to the debt but raised issues regarding indemnity from third parties.
Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the Plaintiff's summary judgment application, confirming the debt based on documentary evidence and admissions by the Defendant.
Issues: Whether the Defendant had a bona fide defense against the Plaintiff's claim and the validity of the Defendant's claims regarding third-party indemnity.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the Defendant's lack of response and admissions in the pleadings established the debt, leaving no triable issues warranting a trial.
Result: Summary judgment granted in favor of the Plaintiff for RM838,672.54, with costs of RM5,000.00.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's decision on appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim based on debt acknowledgment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. defendant's arguments regarding the debt. (Para 6 , 45) |
| 4. court's analysis and findings on evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 5. judgment and order issued. (Para 53) |
(Enclosure 11 And Enclosure 23)
A. Introduction
[1] There are 2 appeals in relation to this Court's decision in allowing the Plaintiff's Summary Judgment application under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC 2012) with cost of RM5,000.00 vide the Notice of Application dated 13 September 2023 (Enclosure 11) and dismissing the Defendant's application for discovery of documents under O 24 rr 3, 7 and 8 ROC 2012 dated 31 October 2023 (Enclosure 23).
[2] In relation to these appeals, this Court will give its analysis and findings simultaneously based on all evidence and exhibits tendered before this Court.
B. Brief Facts Of The Case
[3] The cause of action by the Plaintiff against the Defendant is for the aforesaid debt owing to him as a previous director which was showed in the letter of audit confirmation of the debt owing from the Defendant's auditor dated 20 April 2021 proves the said debt.
[4] This is further supported by the reports and financial statements dated 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2021 prepared by the Defendant itself.
[5] A letter of demand dated 7 July 2020 issued by the Plaintiff's Solicitors, Mr Ngeow & Tan on the Defendant was never contested or replied by the Defendant.
[6] The Plaintiff contended that this is a clear case for summary judgment against the Defendant based on clear and express admission of the debt of RM838,672.54 by the Defendant of which the Plaintiff is claiming that the Defendant did not have a bona fide and is inconsistent with the contemporaneous documents and is inherently improbable in law in view of the documents showing the admission of debt by the Defendant.
[7] This dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is essentially for recovery of a debt owed by the Defendant company to its previous director namely the Plaintiff in the sum of RM838,672.54.
[8] The conclusive proof of the debt is shown in the Defendant's own and following documents:
(i) a confirmation of balance letter dated 20 April 2021 from the Defendant's auditors to the Plaintiff;
(ii) the report and financial statement dated 31 December 2020 of the Defendant;
(iii) the report and financial statement dated 31 December 2021 of the Defendant; and
(iv) other relevant documents which are referred in this case.
[9] At all material times, the Defendant did not raise any objection or dispute the said debt as reflected in the letter of audit confirmation dated 20 April 2021 and the reports and financial statements dated 31 December 2020 and 31 December 2021 and the letter of demand dated 7 July 2020.
[10] As a matter of fact, the Defendant pleaded the following averment with regards to the sum of RM838,672.54:
7. Setakat mengakui bahawa terdapat satu jumlah yang kena dibayar dan tertunggak oleh Defendan kepada seorang bekas pengarah Defendan sebanyak RM838,673.00 berdasarkan penyata-penyata kewangan Defendan bertarikh 31 Disember 2020 dan 31 Disember 2021, lain-lain pengataan di Perenggan 5 Penyata Tuntutan adalah dinafikan dan Plaintif dikenakan beban bukti ketat untuk mengenainya.
C. Analysis And Findings Of This Court
[11] This Court had allowed the Plaintiff's application vide summary judgment application under O 14 ROC 2012 and thereafter disallowed the Defendant's application to seek for discovery of documents based on the following analysis and findings as stated below.
(i) The Letter Of Audit Confirmation
[12] This Court had seen vide exhibit SP-2, p 21 and para 9 of the Affidavit in Reply by the Plaintiff which disclosed
