Back
2025 MarsdenLR 1961
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
AFFIN BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
COPRA MILL LEISURE WORLD SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCC-69-10/2024]
Summary judgment is appropriate where defendants fail to furnish triable issues; certificates of indebtedness may be treated as conclusive evidence unless demonstrable errors are presented.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary Judgment - Recovery action by bank against guarantors for loan default; indisputable evidence established to warrant judgment; defendant's denial deemed insufficient to warrant trial - Claim amounting to RM 2,023,191.98; certificate of indebtedness crafted under bank agreement upheld as conclusive unless manifest error shown; defendant's prior negotiations did not absolve them from liability. (Paras 22-23, 41-44)
(B) Summary Judgment - Burden on defendant to raise arguable triable issues; general denials not sufficient; the court emphasizes firm adherence to established commercial practices in financial disputes, emphasizing that banks must be able to recover loans without unnecessary delays. (Paras 20, 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff (Bank) filed for recovery of sums due from defendants under a banking facility extended to a company; defendants, acting as guarantors, defaulted on a term loan; no triable issues were presented in their defense. (Paras 1-13)
Findings of Court:
Summary judgment granted in favor of the Bank; defendants ordered to repay the outstanding loan amount with costs awarded to the Bank. (Paras 22, 45)
Issues: Examination of whether defendants possessed a bona fide defense or raised arguable issues in response to the claim; the legitimacy of the bank's certification of debt. (Paras 23, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the defendants failed to establish any plausible defense against the summary judgment application; the standard to question the certificate of indebtedness was not met, affirming its conclusiveness unless manifest errors could be proven. (Paras 41-44)
Result: Summary judgment entered against the defendants; ordered to pay the claimed amount with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks recovery of loan amount. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. principles governing summary judgment. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 3. arguments of defendants considered unarguable. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 34) |
| 4. certificate of indebtedness as conclusive evidence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
Introduction
[1] This is a recovery action by the Plaintiff ("Bank") against the Defendants for the amounts due to the Bank in connection with a banking facility that was granted by the Bank to the 1st Defendant ("Company"). The 2nd Defendant ("D2") and the 3rd Defendant ("D3") are sued as guarantors. They had guaranteed the repayment of the banking facility granted by the Bank to the Company.
[2] The Bank filed an application dated 11 December 2024 in Enclosure 11 for summary judgment against the Defendants. Enclosure 11 is made under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[3] On 11 March 2025, I allowed encl 11 and entered summary judgment against the Defendants. It is my finding that the Defendants do not have a valid defence against the Bank's claim, let alone any triable issue. I am satisfied that this is a plain and obvious case where summary judgment ought to be granted. Here are the grounds of my decision.
Background Facts
[4] The Bank's claim against the Defendants is for monies due and owing under a term loan (banking facility) granted to the Company for the sum of RM 3,481,000.00 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bank's letter of offer dated 10 December 2013.
[5] After the Company's acceptance of the terms and conditions in the Bank's letter of offer, the Bank and the Company then entered into a bank facility agreement dated 18 March 2014.
[6] The banking facility was secured by the Company through the following:
(a) a debenture (1st party) dated 18 March 2014;
(b) a general assignment of rental proceeds dated 18 March 2014; and
(c) a deed of assignment dated 18 March 2014.
[7] By way of security for the banking facility given, the Company vide the aforesaid deed of assignment dated 18 March 2014, assigned to the Bank a property located at Prangin Mall, Komtar Pulau Pinang.
[8] Individual guarantees dated 18 March 2014 were also given by D2 and D3 to the Bank, jointly and severally guaranteeing repayments to the Bank.
[9] The Company defaulted in the repayment of the banking facility to the Bank. Thereafter, at the request of the Company, the Bank via a letter dated 6 November 2020 ("said letter") considered the request of the Company. The Bank agreed to review the instalment proposal of the Company on a without prejudice basis. The Bank reserved its rights to continue with legal action and recover the full outstanding liability due to it in the event of default.
[10] Subsequently, the Company did not keep up with its promise and defaulted in the repayments.
[11] The Bank via its solicitors issued a notice of demand dated 26 September 2023 and a notice of recall dated 8 December 2023 to the Defendants, recalling the banking facility given to the Defendants.
[12] The Defendants were still defaulting. Hence, the Bank instructed its solicitors to issue a notice of demand / notice of recall dated 5 September 2024 to the Defendants. The Bank recalled the term loan (banking facility) given to the Company. The Bank demanded from the Defendants jointly and severally the payment RM 2,023,191.98 as at 31 August 2024, together with interest accruing thereon at the rate of 3.5 % per annum above the Bank's base lending rate on monthly rest basis from 1 September 2024 till full settlement.
[13] No payment was forthcoming. Thus, the Bank commenced this action against the Company as the borrower and D2 and D3 as the individual guarantors for recovery of the total amount outstanding and due under the banking facility provided by the Bank to the Company.
The Law On Summary Judgment
[14] Summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 may be granted where the issue is unarguable or not triable. Especially where the issue raised is so
