HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD vs M MUTHIAH & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 MarsdenLR 730

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
M MUTHIAH & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Table of Content
1. appeal against court of appeal's decision. (Para 1)
2. facts about the banking facilities and guarantees. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. factual background of banking facilities and guarantees. (Para 7)
4. claims issued by the plaintiff against the defendants. (Para 8 , 10 , 15)
5. claims and issues raised in the high court. (Para 9)
6. high court's analysis of the liability under guarantees. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 4 December 2012 in allowing the respondents' appeal with costs. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 11 March 2013 on the following questions:

Question 1

Where a guarantee is made payable "on demand", whether a notice of demand issued to a surety there under:

(i) to be a valid and effective to crystallise that surety's liability to pay on the guarantee; and

(ii) accordingly, to crystallise the "creditor's" cause of action against that surety;

must state the precise amount due and owed by the surety to the creditor?

Question 2

In the event the answer to question 1 above is in the negative and the notice of demand does not state the precise amount due and owed by a surety, "whether the pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 MarsdenLR 730

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYAHONG LEONG BANK BERHAD – AppellantVersusM MUTHIAH & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
M MUTHIAH & ANOR AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent