Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4655
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
BLJ COMMERCIALS PTE LTD & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
SUNTRUCK SDN BHD & ORS (ENCLS 7 9 14 29 & 38) – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-632-09/2024]
The court held that once summary judgment is granted based on undisputed facts, subsequent claims challenging those facts are barred by res judicata.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - Order 24 r 12 & Order 92 r 4 - Application for production of documents alleged to be forged - Defendants admitted signing promissory notes but later claimed forgeries - Court found application lacked merit - Held: Defendants' signatures were previously undisputed, invoking res judicata. (Paras 2, 12, 19)
(B) Jurisdiction - Court’s authority diminished post-summary judgment - Defendants could only address authenticity in appeals with fresh evidence. (Paras 12, 13)
(C) Case Submission - Inconsistent pleadings not permitted - Defendants could not claim forging while asserting coercion. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff obtained summary judgment based on promissory notes signed by the Defendants, who later alleged forgery and coercion but had previously admitted signing.
Findings of Court:
The application for document production was dismissed due to lack of merit and undisputed authenticity of the notes, with costs set at RM7,500.
Issues: Whether Defendants could legally challenge the authenticity of promissory notes after admitting to signing them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once summary judgment is granted based on undisputed admissions, subsequent claims regarding the authenticity of the documents are barred by res judicata.
Result: Application dismissed, costs awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for application based on previous judgments. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. application dismissal confirmed with costs. (Para 3) |
| 3. contention of forgery and coercion undermined by earlier admissions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. jurisdictional limits post-summary judgment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. inconsistency in pleadings cannot substantiate claims. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
Introduction
[1] This judgment deals with an application made under O 24 r 12 of the Rules of Court 2012 and or under the Court's inherent jurisdiction under O 92 r 4 for the production of 2 promissory notes which the 2nd and 3rd Defendants contended were forged documents ("Enclosure 29").
[2] However, Enclosure 29 was filed after the Plaintiff had obtained summary judgment against the Defendants in reliance on, inter alia, the said promissory notes as admission of liability. At the hearing of the summary judgment, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not dispute that they had signed the promissory notes at all. This gave rise to the legal question whether the Defendants were permitted in law to make the application for production of the documents in the circumstances of the case.
[3] I did not think that the application had any merits and dismissed the same with costs.
Background Facts
[4] Enclosure 29 was the Defendant's Notice of Application dated 6 January 2025 filed pursuant to O 24 rr 12 and 13 and or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 ("the Application" or "Enclosure 29") for:
a) an order for production of two promissory notes both dated 15 April 2024 that were signed separately by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively ("the Promissory Notes"); and
b) the production of the Promissory Notes for forensic examination by the Department of Chemistry, Malaysia, an expert and or a forensic document examiner.
[5] The Application was filed after the Plaintiffs had obtained summary judgment of their claims on 20 November 2024 for the sum of GBP357,250.00 premised on the Promissory Notes.
[6] It is material to note that at no point prior to the Summary Judgment being allowed on 20 November 2024, did the Defendants raise any dispute whatsoever regarding their signing of the Promissory Notes. On the contrary, at the Summary Judgment stage, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had expressly admitted to the signing of the Promissory Notes but alleged instead that the Promissory Notes were signed under coercion and or duress.
[7] More specifically, the following were the various instances of admission to the signing of the Promissory Notes during the Summary Judgment proceedings:
a) at para 2(iii) of the letter issued by the Defendants' solicitors in response to the Plaintiffs' letter of demand (Exhibit CBL-3 of encl 27) where the Defendants' solicitors stated "[I]n regard to the promissory note, the debt amount was not specified; further it was made to repay such alleged debt within 6 months from the date of signing such promissory note ie 15 April 2024. Hence, your client shall only make such demand on 15 October 2024 when our Clients failed in repayment';
[Emphasis Added]
b) paras 14 of the Defendants' Defence and Counterclaim dated 4 November 2024 (Enclosure 9):
" 14. Nota janji tersebut telah ditandatangani pada 15 April 2024
dengan tarikh tamat pada 31 December 2024. Oleh itu, adalah pramatang bagi Plaintif plaintif untuk memulakan tuntutan ini pada bulan September 2024 atau melaksanakan kaveat ke atas harta atau memaksa penjualan hartanah tanpa memberikan justifikasi yang memadai berhubung pertanyaan tentang penyataan akaun yang telah dibangkitkan oleh Defendan defendan..."
[Emphasis Added]
c) para 9 to 11 of the Defendants' Affidavit in Reply dated 17 October 2024 (Enclosure 7);
"9. Oleh kerana wujudnya Jumlah Tertunggak, pada 15 April 2024, Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ketiga masing-masing telah mengeluarkan Nota-Nota Janji Hutang (Promissory Notes) ("Nota-Nota Janji Hutang" tersebut) kepada Plaintif-Plaintif di mana Defendan Kedua dan Defendan Ket
