Abdul Malik Ishak J:

The plaintiff, a sub-contractor to the defendant, supplied materials and performed works according to the defendant's specifications of a "hypermarket" known as "Giant Cash & Carry" at an area in the Mukim of Plentong, district of Johor Bahru, Johore. The plaintiff dutifully completed that project and as a result the defendant was said to owe the plaintiff a sum of RM325,229.16 being the balance of the works undertaken by the plaintiff at the behest of the defendant. The statement of claim in encl. 2 particularised the particulars, at para. 4, of the works undertaken by the plaintiff and the sums duly paid by the defendant.

The particulars are now reproduced for easy reference:

Butir-Butir

(a) Jumlah amaun untuk kerja-kerja sub-kontrak bagi pembinaan gudang/hypermarket "Giant Cash & Carry" di kawasan Mukim Plentong, Daerah Johor Bahru, Johor. ... ... ... RM490,229.16

(b) Bayaran pada 20.1.98 ... RM 50,000.00

(c) Bayaran pada 26.1.98 ... RM 30,000.00

(d) Bayaran pada 06.4.98 ... RM 65,000.00

(e) Bayaran pada 20.5.98 ... RM 20,000.00 ------------------ RM325,229.16 ===========

The plaintiff through their solicitors issued a demand notice dated 21 May 1998 to the defendant for payment of those sums but the defendant failed, refused and ignored that demand notice completely. For these reasons, the plaintiff claimed from the defendant the following (see the statement of claim in encl. 2):

(a) jumlah wang sebanyak RM325,229.16;

(b) faedah pada kadar 8% setahun atas hutang tersebut mulai dari tarikh writ saman sehingga tarikh penyelesaian penuh baginya;

(c) kos tindakan yang ditaksirkan;

(d) kos;

(e) apa-apa perintah atau relif lain yang dianggap/dapati wajar atau suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang mulia ini.

The writ of summons and the statement of claim (encl. 2) were dated 10 June 1998 and filed on the same day. The defendant entered appearance on 30 June 1998 through Messrs Dorairaj, Low & Teh as reflected in encl. 4 which was filed on 2 July 1998. By way of a summons in chambers in encl. 7 dated 4 July 1998 and filed on the same day, the plaintiff through Messrs H.Y. Lee & Hee sought for summary judgment under O. 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("RHC"). That summary judgment application was supported by an affidavit of Teh Ann Chung that was affirmed on 3 July 1998 and filed on 4 July 1998 as reflected in encl. 6. Annuar Chew bin Abdullah affirmed an affidavit in reply on 17 July 1998 which was filed on 20 July 1998 as can be seen in encl. 9. By way of a reply, Teh Ann Chung affirmed an affidavit in reply on 21 July 1998 which was filed on the same day. These affidavits together with the summons in chambers in enclosure 7 finally came up for hearing before the senior assistant registrar ("SAR") on 19 August 1998 and the SAR must have been satisfied that there was no triable issue and accordingly entered judgment against the defendant. Being aggrieved, the defendant appealed to the judge in chambers as reflected in encl. 14.

It must be emphasised that the defendant has yet to file their statement of defence.

The law journals are replete with authorities on summary judgments. Suffice for this exercise that reference to some of them are made here. Thus, in an O. 14 application the defendant need only raise one triable issue acceptable to the court to enable him to defend the suit (Amanah Merchant Bank v. Lim Tow Seng & Ors [1993] 2 CLJ 635, [1993] 2 MLJ 241). It is said that an O. 14 application cannot be granted where the defence raises a plausible dispute (Avel Consultant Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Mohamed Zain Yusof & Ors [1985] 2 CLJ 11, [1985] 2 MLJ 209). But where the facts are clear and undisputed and, the only issue raised is a question of law, it is proper that it be dealt with in an O. 14 application (American Express Sdn Bhd v. Dato Wong Kee Tat & Ors [1990] 1 CLJ 17; [1990] 1 MLJ 91). It is now trite law that an O. 14 application is to enable a plaintiff to obtain a summary judgmen