Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6324
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
STYLO INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-86-02/2024]
The court affirms that summary judgment is appropriate when defendants fail to raise genuine issues of material fact, allowing the entitled party prompt recovery without unnecessary trials.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14 - Summary judgment application - Plaintiffs, CIMB Bank Berhad, sought recovery of RM1,193,498.38 due from Stylo International Sdn Bhd and its guarantor Nancy Yeoh Ai Suan for loan defaults - Court found that the plaintiff had met procedural requirements for summary judgment as defendants failed to raise bona fide triable issues; judgment granted in favor of plaintiff. (Paras 1-62)
(B) Summary judgment - Courts are to ensure no genuine issues of material fact exist before granting summary judgment, preventing unnecessary trials. (Paras 9, 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff extended banking facilities totaling RM1,043,988.00 to the first defendant, who defaulted on payments. Despite the adverse impact of COVID-19, the plaintiff's contractual rights reserved allowed for termination and recovery of owed sums.
Findings of Court:
The plaintiff fulfilled the requirements under Order 14; no triable issues presented by defendants.
Issues: The court analyzed procedural compliance for summary judgment and the existence of genuine disputes of fact raised by defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unless genuine disputes exist, summary judgment serves to prevent delays in recovery for entitled parties; contractual terms prevail over claims of financial hardship.
Result: Application for summary judgment allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff seeks summary judgment for defaulted loans. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments on compliance and obligations discussed. (Para 8 , 20 , 21 , 31 , 32 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47) |
| 3. court emphasizes adherence to legal standards for summary judgment. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 44 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 58 , 60 , 61) |
| 4. summary judgment principles clarified. (Para 11 , 27 , 30 , 45 , 51) |
Introduction
[1] Enclosure 9 pertains to the plaintiffs application for summary judgment pursuant to O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff, CIMB Bank Berhad, seeks to recover outstanding sums under banking facilities extended to the first defendant, Stylo International Sdn Bhd ("D1"), with the second defendant, Nancy Yeoh Ai Suan ("D2"), as guarantor. The plaintiff contends that the defendants have defaulted in their repayment obligations, and there are no triable issues that merit a full trial. The defendants, however, opposes the application, contending that a triable issue exists and warrants further examination. The key question before this Court is whether the defendants have successfully raised a bona fide triable issue or whether the plaintiff has established a clear entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Background Facts
[2] D1 was a customer of the plaintiff bank, having sought financing for its event management business. Based on a letter of offer dated 13 November 2017 and a Facility Agreement dated 5 December 2017, the aggregate sum RM1,043,988.00 was availed, which comprises of the following facilities:
(a) Term Loan Facility amounting to RM648,988.00 to refinance a double storey shophouse from Alliance Bank Berhad inclusive of legal fee of RM21,888,00 and valuation fee of RM2,100.00; and
(b) Overdraft Facility amounting to RM395,000.00 for working capital requirement.
(collectively referred to as the 'Banking Facilities').
[3] Pursuant to a Joint and Several Guarantee dated 5 December 2017, D2, a director and shareholder of D1 stood as a guarantor to DTs performance under the said Banking Facilities.
[4] The plaintiff has accordingly disbursed the said Banking Facilities to D1, and D1 has utilized the same. Flowever, D1 subsequently failed, neglected, and/or refused to make the overdue monthly payments. Consequently, the plaintiff, through Messrs Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi, issued the defendants with a demand dated 12 December 2023 claiming the arrears of RM26,392.39 for the Term Loan Facility (5-month overdue) and the excess of RM114,117.08 for the Overdraft Facility (37-month overdue). (See Exhibit LCL-4 of encl 10 and Exhibit LCL-7 of encl 15).
[5] As the defendants made partial payment of RM500.00 for the Overdraft Facility, and RM4,965.00 for the Term Loan Facility, the plaintiff has through Messrs Kuah, Lim, Chin & Ooi, accepted the defendant's repudiation and issued a notice of termination dated 4 January 2024 and claimed for the outstanding amount of RM1,193,498.38 as at 3 January 2024 (See Exhibit LCL-5 of Enclosure 10 and Exhibit LCL-8 of encl 15); which comprises the following:
[6] A Certificate of Indebtedness certifying the debt due was issued by the plaintiff pursuant to the relevant clauses under the Facility Agreement as well as the Joint and Several Guarantee (See Exhibit LCL-1 of encl 10); wherein the overdue sum comprises the following:
[7] On 6 February 2024, the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendants by filing a Writ and Statement of Claim. On 17 April 2024, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Rules") against the defendants (Enclosure 9). Two earlier hearing dates ie on 24 September 2025 and 5 December 2025 were vacated due to administrative reasons, wherein this case was subsequently transferred to this Court. Upon considering the cause papers and submissions filed I had on 11
