In banking cases, the burden to demonstrate triable issues lies with the defendant, and claims based on well-documented agreements are generally upheld unless fraud or manifest error is shown.

Table of Content
1. overview of the loan facility and security (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)

In this Order 14 summary judgment application, the Plaintiff is claiming a sum of RM459,267.32 as at 31.3.2009, being the outstanding balance on the Restructured Term Loan Facility, together with interest thereon at the rate of 2% per year over the base lending rate of the Plaintiff which was 5.5% per year as at 31.3.2009 at monthly rests from 1.4 .2009, and an Additional Interest of 1% per year on the amount in arrears, subject to a minimum payment of RM5.00 per month, until the date of full payment or full settlement. The Defendant is a sole proprietor. The material facts of the claim as they appear in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim show the following. By way of Letter of Offer dated 13.1.1997 the Plaintiff granted to the Defendant Several Banking Facilities by way of Credit Facilities to the total amount of RM2,650,000. These facilities were granted on terms and conditions as contained in the Plaintiff's Letter of Offer dated 13.1.1997. This Letter of Offer is exhibited as Exhibit MBB-1 in the Supporting Affidavit of the Plaintiff. The securities in respect of these Trade Facilities are contained in the Letter of Offer stated above, and they are:

(1) Fixed Deposit of RM500,000.00 with interest to be capitalised;

(2) A Loan Agreement-Cum-Assignment dated 11.11.1997 over a piece of property described as No. 15, Jalan 2/128, Happy Garden, 58200 Kuala Lumpur, whereby this property was absolutely assigned by the Defendant and one Pang Ah Mooi to the Plaintiff by way of security.

(3) A Loan Agreement-Cum-Assignment Third Party dated 11.11.1997 over another piece of property described as No. 16-1, Jalan 1/128, Happy Garden, 58200 Kuala Lumpur;

(4) A First Third-Party Charge dated 10.11.1997 by which Pang Ah Mooi charged a third piece of land held under Grant No. Hakmilik 3660, No. Lot 10382, Mukim Petaling, Wilayah Persekutuan.

All these securities are expressly pleaded by the Plaintiff in the Statement of Claim. See paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim to this effect.

Upon the Defendant's request, the Plaintiff restructured this facility by way of a Letter of Offer dated 27.6.2001. By this restructuring the facilities mentioned earlier were converted into a Term Loan of RM970,771.50. The Term Loan was repayable by RM30,000.00 per month over 38 months. This Letter of Offer dated 27.6.2001 expressly provided that the securities under the earlier Trade Facilities were to apply and be in force for the Restructured Facilities. Further, the Defendant was required to execute a Supplemental Facility Agreement for the sum of RM970,771.50. This Supplemental Facility Agreement was executed on or about 3.4.2002.

Upon request of the Defendant again, the Plaintiff by its Letter of Offer dated 1.6.2005 further restructured the Term Loan. The loan was now to be repaid by RM10,000.00 per month over 60 months. As for the First Restructured Facility, the securities mentioned earlier were to be accepted and be in force. Another Supplemental Facility Agreement was executed dated 3.4.2002. The Supplemental Facility Agreement dated 3.4.2002 was accepted as being in force.

The Defendant defaulted on the Restructured Facility and as a result of which the facility was recalled and the Plaintiff sued for the sum of RM472,745.72 as at 31.8.2007, together with interest continuing thereafter. This first letter of demand is dated 14.9.2007 and 24.92007.

Upon the Defendant's failure to pay the sum demanded, Plaintiff issued further letters of demand dated 25.52009 and 1.6.2009, to demand the total outstanding of RM459,267.32.32 together with interests thereon.

The 1^st Defendant raises five issues which it argues as triable issues. The first issue concerns an allegation that no security documents were signed in respect of the Letter of Offer dated 27.6.2001, and since no security documents were signed, it is argued that the said Agreement was without considerati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document