Parties are bound by the terms of signed agreements irrespective of understanding unless fraud or misrepresentation is established; mere assertions fail to raise triable issues for summary judgment.

Introduction

[1] This is a case where the Plaintiff bank commenced proceedings against the Defendants, claiming a total outstanding sum of RM5,222,509.10 being an amount due and owing as at 4 October 2024.

[2] Pursuant to the filing of their statement of defence, the Plaintiff had thereafter filed an application in encl 8 dated 14 December 2024 seeking summary judgment to be recorded against the Defendants pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("hereinafter referred to as " ROC 2012") for a sum of RM5,222,509.10 and interest.

[3] Upon perusing the cause papers, affidavits and considering submissions of learned counsel, the Court had on 25 April 2025 allowed the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment. Dissatisfied with the said decision, the Defendants have since filed a Notice of Appeal on 22 May 2025.

[4] As such, I will in this judgment set out the salient background facts, the parties' respective contentions and the reasons for allowing the Plaintiffs summary judgment application.

Salient Background Facts

[5] On 10 December 2013, the Plaintiff extended the 1st Defendant (D1) a Letter of Offer offering financial facilities by way of term loan in the sum of RM5,696,000.00, subject to the terms and conditions stated therein.

[6] It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the 2nd Defendant (D2) as the authorised signatory of D1 accepted and executed the said letter of offer agreeing to the terms and conditions of the same.

[7] Upon acceptance of the terms and conditions of the said letter of offer, the Plaintiff as well as D2 and D3 on behalf of D1 entered into a Facilities Agreement dated 10 April 2014. D1 then secured the Facilities Agreement with the following:

a. Debenture (1st Party) dated 10 April 2014;

b. General Assignment of Rental Proceeds dated 10 April 2014; and

c. Deed of Assignment dated 10 April 2024.

[8] Vide the said Deed of Assignment, D1 assigned to the Plaintiff a piece of property held under Master Title No Hakmilik: PN 2542 and PN 2543, Lot 398 and 399, s 17, Daerah Timur Laut, Bandar George Town, Pulau Pinang, together with a unit of commercial shoplot known as Parcel No SB-888, Prangin Mall Komtar, Penang now bearing assessment address No 33-SB-01, Jalan Dr Li Chwee Leong, 10100.00 Penang.

[9] It can also be seen from the Second Schedule of the Facilities Agreement that D2 and D3, as directors of D1 executed a Letter of Guarantee dated 10 April 2014 to guarantee the amount of RM5,696,000.00.

[10] Pertinently, s 2.01 of the said Letter of Guarantee provides that D2 and D3 have unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed as a continuing obligation, the payment to the Plaintiff on demand all the guaranteed amount together with the interest commission discount.

[11] Further, s 2.03 of the said Letter of Demand provides that D2 and D3 as the guarantors, shall be the sole and principal debtor in cases of paying the guaranteed sum.

[12] D1 then defaulted in repayment of the said Banking Facilities. Thereafter, at the request of D1, the Plaintiff vide their letter dated 6 November 2020 (on a without prejudice basis) replying to DTs email dated 20 October 2020 agreed to review the instalment proposal of D1.

[13] Subsequently D1 did not keep up with the promise and defaulted in repayments.

[14] The Plaintiff vide their solicitors issued a Notice of Recall and Deman