The court affirmed that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a triable issue, which must be clearly pleaded.

Introduction

[1] This is the decision of the Court in allowing the Plaintiffs application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. This Court allowed the application with cost of RM1,000.00. The reasoning behind this Court's decision is deliberated on and laid out below.

Case Background

[2] Basically, the Plaintiffs claim is for the outstanding sum of RM7874.40 (Outstanding Sum) for legal services rendered to the Defendant for pursuing legal action against an insurance company for damages related to a road accident involving the Defendant. (Services).

[3] According to the Plaintiff, the Services have been provided to the Defendant pursuant to a Warrant to Act dated 7 January 2023 duly acknowledged and signed by the Defendant. The Services provided were communicated to the Defendant and the legal action taken by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant have been presented in the Affidavit in Support of the Plaintiff's O 14 Application.

[4] A brief table setting out the Outstanding Sum is annexed herewith:

[5] The Plaintiff contended that at all material times, the Defendant failed to settle the legal fees claimed by the Plaintiff and had never responded to nor disputed the Notice of Demand dated 17 May 2023 and the enclosed Bill for the Services provided by the Plaintiff.

[6] The Plaintiff further submitted that the Outstanding Sum, remains due and payable and the Defendant has no defence on merit.

The Plaintiff's Contention

[7] These are the contentions by the Plaintiff for the summary judgment application:

(a) The Defendant has by way of a Warrant to Act dated 7 January 2023 agreed to appoint the Defendant as his solicitor for the Services;

(b) The Plaintiff has at all material times provided Services to the Defendant on a bona fide basis and the bill for Services has also been sent to the Defendant but the Defendant refuses to make payment for the Services;

(c) The defendant owes RMRM7, 874.40 to the Plaintiff for the Services and despite benefitting from the Services, the Defendant still refuses to make payment to the Plaintiff after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Demand and bill for Services;

(d) The defendant has no meritorious defence to the Plaintiffs claim.

The Defendant's Contention

[8] In opposing the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment, the Defendant has relied on the following grounds:

(a) that the Affidavit in Support of the O 14 Application cannot be admitted since one Mr Ranizan, the partner in the Plaintiff was the person who has personal knowledge of the communication with the Defendant. The fact that the deponent, Mr Amirul Faliq deposed the Affidavit in Support of the Application instead of Mr Ranizan brings the said Affidavit in Support into the category of hearsay evidence hence it ought to be rejected;

(b) that the Plaintiff's action in filing the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim is premature as the Defendant has 6 months from the date of delivery of the bill to file a petition to assess the costs. This can only be done one month after receipt of the bill. This 6 months period has not expired;

(c) that the Defendant agrees to pay the Plaintiff for the Services however, he is only willing to pay a reasonable amount commensurate with the services provided;

(d) that the Plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory services to the Defendant which led the D