Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6070
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
AFFIN BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
COPRA MILL LEISURE WORLD SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: PA-22NCC-67-10/2024]
Summary judgment can be granted in clear cases without triable issues, particularly in banking claims where a certificate of indebtedness is deemed conclusive unless proven otherwise by the defendant.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary judgment - A banking facility provided to a Company and guaranteed by individual Defendants - Defendants defaulted on payments and did not have a valid defense to the claim - Summary judgment entered as the case showed no triable issue (Paras 1, 23, 25)
(B) Summary Judgment - The court may grant summary judgment where the issues are unarguable or not triable, particularly relating to clear, undisputed facts and law - A complete defense is not necessary, just a showing of a triable issue (Paras 15, 16, 22)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a bank, sought recovery for RM 1,584,000 from a Company due to the default in payments, with two individual Defendants as guarantors. The Bank had issued notices of demand after the Company requested a review of payment terms, which were ignored by the Defendants (Paras 1-14).
Findings of Court:
Summary judgment granted against Defendants for RM 1,541,981.69 plus interest, based on a conclusive certificate of indebtedness provided by the Bank (Paras 23, 41-44).
Issues: Whether the Defendants had a valid defense against the claim; whether material facts were concealed; and the validity of the certificate of indebtedness (Paras 24, 25).
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Defendants presented no bona fide defense on the merits; the assertions raised were legally insufficient and unsupported by evidence to establish a triable issue (Paras 34-40).
Result: Summary judgment was entered against the Defendants, ordering payment and awarding costs (Paras 45).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bank seeks recovery due to default. (Para 1 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. summary judgment granted against defendants. (Para 3) |
| 3. summary judgment requirements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. certificate of indebtedness as conclusive proof. (Para 22 , 23 , 39) |
| 5. defendants' claims of concealed facts. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
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 14 December 2024 in encl 8 for summary judgment against the Defendants. Enclosure 8 is made under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.
[3] On 11 March 2025,1 allowed encl 8 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 1,584,000.00 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bank's letter of offer dated 7 December 2016.
[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 15 June 2017.
[6] The banking facility was secured by the Company through the following:
(a) an assignment of sale and purchase agreement dated 15 June 2017;
(b) a letter of set off (first party) dated 15 June 2017; and
(c) a charge over cash deposit (first party) dated 15 June 2017.
[7] By way of security for the banking facility given, the Company vide the aforesaid assignment of sale and purchase agreement dated 15 June 2017, assigned to the Bank a property located at Bandar Perai Jaya, Perai Pulau Pinang.
[8] Individual guarantees dated 15 June 2017 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] As such, the Bank exercised its rights in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforementioned charge over cash deposit (first party) and letter of set off (first party) dated 15 June 2017. The Bank uplifted and liquidated the charged fixed deposit with interest in the sum of RM 71,527.95 to settle part of the Company's debt.
[12] 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.
[13] 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 1,541,981.69 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.
[14] No payment was forthcoming. Thus, the Bank co
