JUDGMENT

Adlin Abdul Majid J:

A. Introduction

[1] For the purpose of this judgment, the parties shall be referred to as they were in the Sessions Court , namely the appellant as the defendant and the respondent as the plaintiff.

[2] The plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment against the defendant ("Summary Judgment Application"), for sums the plaintiff claimed had not been paid by the defendant, after the completion of services by the plaintiff to the defendant.

[3] The Sessions Court allowed the Summary Judgment Application, and the defendant filed this appeal.

[4] The Court dismissed the appeal, for the reasons explained below.

B. Background Facts

[5] The plaintiff is in the business of providing information technology business solutions. The defendant engaged the plaintiff to provide services under the following purchase orders, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff:

a. Purchase order no 0040/16 dated 28 October 2016, on the provision of amongst others, network maintenance services to Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan ("JPJ"), for 31 months from November 2016; and

b. Purchase order no 0042/17 dated 24 May 2017, on the provision of additional local area network (LAN) points for 44 JPJ branches.

The services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant under the purchase orders are collectively referred to as the "Services".

[6] The Services were completed by the plaintiff. The defendant made part payments towards the plaintiff's invoices. However, the plaintiff claimed that there is an outstanding amount, totalling RM812,142.03, due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of the Services, which the defendant had not paid.

[7] The plaintiff filed the claim in the Sessions Court to recover the outstanding sum due. The defendant did not file a defence against the claim.

[8] The plaintiff filed the Summary Judgment Application, which was allowed by the Sessions Court .

C. Requirements For Summary Judgment

[9] The Summary Judgment Application was filed under O 14 r 1(1) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC"), which provides that:

"Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant."

[Emphasis Added]

[10] Order 14 r 2 of the ROC sets out the manner in which an application for summary judgment shall be made.

[11] Under O 14 rr 1 and 2, the following requirements must be met by the plaintiff in an application for summary judgment:

a. The statement of claim must be served on the defendant;

b. The defendant must have entered appearance; and

c. The affidavit in support of the summary judgment application must verify the facts upon which the claim is based, and must state that there is no defence to the claim.

[12] Once these requirements have been met, the plaintiff would have established a prima facie case against the defendant, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to satisfy the Court as to why judgment should not be given against it (see National Company for Foreign Trade v. Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd; [1984] 2 MLJ 300; [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 283).

[13] It is undisputed that the writ and statement of claim have been served on the defendant, and that the defendant has entered appearance at the Sessions Court .

[14] In the affidavit in support of the Summary Judgment Application, the plaintiff had also verified the facts upon which the claim is based, and had stated that there is no defence to the claim. In this regard, the plaintiff's claim is that:

a. The Services have been provided to the defendant, and the defendant did not raise any issues or complaints about the Services;

b. Invoices for the Services were issued to the defendant; and

c. From the invoice