Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6365
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
AFFIN BANK BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
PCS VISION SDN BHD & ANOR (ENCL 8) – Respondent
[Writ Summons No: WA-22NCC-225-04/2024]
The burden to show triable issues lies with the defendants in a summary judgment application; mere allegations without detailed proof are insufficient for contesting such an application.
Headnote:(A) Order 14 of the Rules of Court - Summary judgment application - The burden of proof to show triable issues lies with the defendants, not the plaintiff - Bare allegations without detailed proof do not establish a triable issue - Certificates of Indebtedness are conclusive in the absence of manifest error. (Paras 13-24)
(B) The court must examine if sufficient facts are presented to establish triable issues - A general denial of debt is insufficient to contest a summary judgment application. (Paras 14, 17)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a bank, sought summary judgment against the defendants for non-payment of overdraft and letters of credit, with the 2nd defendant acting as a guarantor. The defendants failed to substantiate their claims of excessive debt and denial of liability. (Paras 5-9)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there are no triable issues and allowed the summary judgment accordingly. (Paras 20-29)
Issues: The main issues addressed included whether the defendants presented sufficient proof of triable issues to challenge the summary judgment application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendants did not provide substantive evidence against the conclusive Certificates of Indebtedness and their allegations failed to meet the required legal standard. (Paras 23-28)
Result: Summary judgment is granted with costs of RM1,500.00.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary judgment procedure overview (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties and factual background of the case (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defendants' affidavit and arguments against summary judgment (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. burden of proof in o 14 applications (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. evaluation of alleged triable issues (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
Summary Judgment
Introduction
[1] This is a summary judgment application dated 5 September 2024 [Enclosure 8] filed by the plaintiff.
[2] I heard the application on 10 March 2025. Learned counsel for both the plaintiff and defendants were present. However, only the plaintiff's counsel filed written submission. The defendants' counsel didn't file any written submission to oppose the summary judgment application.
[3] After reading the pleadings, affidavits and the plaintiff's counsel's written submission, I allowed the summary judgment with costs of RM1,500.00 on the ground there are no triable issues.
[4] The defendants have appealed to the Court of Appeal on 4 April 2025. These are my Grounds of Judgment.
Facts of the case
[5] The plaintiff is a bank. The 1st defendant is a customer of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is a shareholder, director and guarantor for loans taken by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff.
[6] The plaintiff sued the two defendants for non-payment of an overdraft and Letters of credit facilities. The details of these facilities are set out in the Statement of Claim from paras 4 to 9.
[7] The 2nd defendant is a guarantor for these two facilities taken by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff evidenced by a Guarantee dated 18 April 2022. The details of the Guarantee are set out in the Statement of Claim at para 10.
[8] By a letter dated 16 January 2024, the plaintiff demanded for the repayment of these facilities. The defendants failed to repay.
[9] The plaintiff filed a suit and applied for summary judgment.
Affidavit filed by the defendants to resist the summary judgment application
[10] The defendants filed one affidavit via the 2nd defendant dated 18 October 2024 to resist the summary judgment application. [See encl 10].
[11] In this short affidavit of 3 pages, the defendants made bare allegations without proof.
[12] The defendants-
i. Asserted the Certificates of Indebtedness are without detailed calculations and the defendants are not able to verify the same. [paragraph 5 affidavit].
ii. Asserted they were not allowed to amend the loan documents and the Guarantee prior to signing. [paragraph 8 affidavit].
iii. Deny owing any debt, and if a debt is owed, the sum claimed is excessive. [paragraphs 9 - 10 affidavit].
iv. Asserted the interest claimed is excessive. [paragraph 11 affidavit].
The law
In an O 14 application the burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants
[13] The Federal Court in Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Ying & Anor ; ; ["Cempaka Finance"] has held that in an O 14 application, the burden is not on the plaintiff to prove his case. Steve Shim CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) said at p 551:
Quite clearly, the Court of Appeal has put the burden on the plaintiff to prove his case in an O 14 application. With respect, that cannot be the correct proposition of law. In an application under O 14, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the following conditions: that the defendant must have entered appearance; that the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; that the affidavit in support must comply with r 2 of O 14 in that it must verify the facts on which the claim is based and must state the deponent's belief that there is no defence to the claim. (See Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v. Dior Enterprises & Ors ; .) Once those conditions are fulfilled, the burden then shifts to the defendant to raise triable issues. The law on this is trite.
[Emphasis Added]
[14] The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendants. It is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a me
