The court emphasized the need for precision in claims of inducement and considered that past consideration can validate supplemental guarantees, irrespective of when documentation is executed.

[1] This is the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against both defendants in respect of monies alleged to be due and owing under Redeemable Secured Loan Stocks ('RSLS')-A. The plaintiff here is the Trustee for the RSLS-A holder, AmBank Berhad. The RSLS-A were issued by the 1st defendant, Lambang Pertama Sdn Bhd ('D1') and guaranteed by the 2nd defendant, Idaman Unggul Berhad ('D2').

[2] The defendants both oppose the plaintiff's application for summary judgment maintaining that there are several issues that require this matter to be referred to trial. They include the contentions that:

(i) The debenture dated 23 October 2003 between the plaintiff and Idris Hydraulic (Malaysia) Berhad is null and void because it contradicts cl 120 of the Sustainable Forest Management Licence Agreement ('SFMLA') which is an agreement between Idris Hydraulic and the Sabah State Government. Similarly the Notice of Default issued by the plaintiff in respect of the RSLS-A recovery is also null and void as it contradicts the SFMLA.

(ii) The second supplemental guarantee agreement dated 19 May 2009 is invalid and void for no consideration;

(iii) There were representations made by the plaintiff to the effect that the defendants could continue to negotiate for the disposal of the shares of Idris Hydraulic or the shares of D1 indefinitely, as a consequence of which the second supplemental guarantee agreement, amongst other documents, was executed by the defendants. In short, the defendants contend that they were induced by the plaintiff's representations to execute, inter alia, the second supplemental guarantee agreement of 19 May 2009;

(iv) The failure of the plaintiff in this suit to strike out Suit No: 22-933-2010 filed in the Shah Alam High Court ('the Shah Alam suit') by the defendants. In the Shah Alam suit the defendants here are the plaintiffs while the plaintiff here is the defendant. In short it is contended that as the issues here are similar to the issues canvassed in the Shah Alam suit, and as the plaintiff here has failed to attempt strike out the Shah Alam suit, it follows that there must be issues that require ventilation at trial in the instant suit.

[3] These four matters comprise the issues raised by the defendants during the course of the oral submissions before this Court, although several others were raised in the written submissions. I only propose to address those matters in respect of which oral submissions were made to this Court.

Facts

[4] The relevant facts are set out below. In doing so, I have adopted in toto the factual background as set out by the plaintiff in its written submissions. Prior to doing so however, I procured the consent of both learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants at the summary judgment hearing, to do so. They both consented to the same, save that learned counsel for the defendant requested that a few insertions be made, which I have duly undertaken.

[5] The material facts leading to this action are set out below:

(a) Sometime before 1999, various financial institutions had granted credit facilities to one Idris Hydraulic (Malaysia) Berhad ("Idris Hydraulic") but Idris Hydraulic was unable to repay the same. As a result, Idris Hydraulic's creditors, including these financial institutions, entered into a debt restructuring scheme ("the Scheme") to restructure the said debts of Idris Hydraulic, which amoun