Back
2025 MarsdenLR 940
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MEGA MEISA SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
INTRA ALLIANCE CONSULT SDN BHD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-199-03/2024]
An interim payment order cannot be granted after the dismissal of a summary judgment application due to the presence of triable issues, requiring a stringent evidential threshold to demonstrate entitlement.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 22A - Application for interim payment - Plaintiff sought RM19,755,000.00, alleging outstanding balance under Sale and Purchase Agreement - Defendant contended application not maintainable after dismissal of summary judgment, and plaintiff failed to show exceptional hardship. (Paras 1-4)
(B) The court held that it is inconsistent to grant interim payment after dismissing summary judgment given existence of triable issues, thus dismissing the application. (Paras 18-23)
(C) Interim payments are meant to alleviate hardship and require demonstrable risk of asset dissipation, which the plaintiff failed to establish, reiterating previous claims. Thus, the request was denied. (Paras 27-30)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff did not meet the stringent burden required for an interim payment under established legal precedents, particularly given ongoing substantial factual disputes related to payment claims. (Paras 19, 34-38)
Issues: Whether an interim payment order is permissible post-summary judgment dismissal and whether plaintiff demonstrated the requisite hardship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that an interim payment order cannot be granted in the presence of triable issues, and the burden of proof is exceptionally high, beyond mere likelihood of success.
Result: Application for interim payment dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for interim payment. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. defendant's opposition to the application. (Para 3) |
| 3. reasons for dismissal of interim payment. (Para 4 , 27 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 4. standard for interim payment threshold. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 34) |
Introduction
[1] This was an application by the plaintiff for an interim payment order pursuant to O 22A of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff sought an order compelling the defendant to make an interim payment in the sum of RM19,755,000.00 or such other sums as may be determined pending the disposal of the action.
[2] This sum of RM19,755,000.00 allegedly represents the outstanding balance of the purchase price for a parcel of land identified as GM 2444, Lot 29343, Mukim Setapak, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Wilayah Persekutuan ("Subject Land"). The plaintiff claimed that the defendant remained indebted for this amount under the terms of a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 27 October 2017 ("SPA") and a Supplementary Agreement dated 30 October 2017 ("Supplementary SPA").
[3] The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application. The primary contention raised by the defendant was that the present application cannot be maintained following this Court's earlier dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment application. In addition, the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has failed to establish any exceptional hardship that would warrant the grant of an interim payment order. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had not satisfied the evidential threshold prescribed under O 22A of the Rules of Court 2012.
[4] Upon careful consideration of the affidavits and the submissions, I found that the plaintiffs application for an interim payment order must be dismissed. The plaintiff was not satisfied and appealed against the decision.
Brief Background Facts
[5] The plaintiff is a private limited company. It has been the registered proprietor of the Subject Land since 1993 having purchased it from the previous owners. The previous owners were represented in the transaction by one Hj. Mustapah bin Dorani.
[6] In 2016, Hj. Mustapah commenced civil proceedings against the plaintiff seeking to recover the Subject Land ("Litigation"). This action followed several earlier attempts by Hj. Mustapah to lodge caveats over the Subject Land which were unsuccessful.
[7] While the Litigation was ongoing, the plaintiff entered into the SPA with the defendant on 27 October 2017. Linder the SPA, the plaintiff agreed to sell the Subject Land to the defendant for the price of RM38,000,000.00. Subsequently, the parties executed the Supplementary SPA on 30 October 2017. The Supplementary SPA amended several provisions of the SPA, particularly those relating to the payment terms
[8] Pursuant to the Supplementary SPA, the purchase price was to be paid in three separate tranches as follows:
(a) a deposit of RM2,000,000.00;
(b) a further sum of RM18,000,000.00 upon the transfer of the Subject Land and the registration of a charge in favour of the defendant; and
(c) the balance sum of RM18,000,000.00 to be paid in eight equal instalments with the first instalment becoming due three months after the defendant successfully obtained the Developer's Licence and the Sale and Advertising Licence from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT).
[9] The transfer of the Subject Land to the defendant was completed on 21 December 2017. Following this, a charge over the Subject Land was registered on 6 June 2018 in favour of MBSB Bank Berhad.
[10] On 19 December 2017, the plaintiff issued a letter to the defendant's solicitors. The contents and effect of this letter have become the subject of dispute between the parties particularly in relation to the defendant's outstanding payment obligations under the SPA and Supplementary SPA.
[11] Subsequent to the transfer of the Subject Land, the defendant made a series of payments to the pla
