Clement Skinner J:

[1]There are two appeals before me. They both arise from the decision of the learned deputy registrar. On 26 January 2005, he dismissed with costs the plaintiff's application for summary judgment against all the defendants under O 14 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC'). He also dismissed with costs the defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's claims under O 18 r 19(b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ie, the second, third and fourth limbs of therule.

[2]The brief facts leading to these appeals are these.

[3]The plaintiff is a bank. The first defendant is a shipbuilder. At all material times the second to seventh defendants were directors of the first defendant and had acted as guarantors of the first defendant in respect of a bridging loan granted to the first defendant by the plaintiff. The fifth defendant has passed away and the plaintiff does not pursue this action against his estate.

[4]The first defendant as shipbuilder had entered into a contract to build a vessel, the MT 'Sheta' for a company called Seri Mukali Sdn Bhd ('Seri Mukali'). On 26 July 1995, the plaintiff granted the first defendant banking facilities of RM2m, in the form of a Bridging Line upon terms and conditions set out in a Bridging Line Agreement of the same date ('the Bridging Line Agreement').

[5]Seri Mukali also obtained its own financing to pay the first defendant for the building of MT 'Sheta'. It obtained a loan from Malayan Banking Berhad ('MBB').

[6]The first defendant needed to install a marine engine in the vessel which it had ordered from the manufacturer in Canada, Ulstein Maritime Ltd, and wished to utilise the Bridging Line facility to pay the manufacturer for the engine. Accordingly, on 4 May 1999, the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff informing the latter of its intention and indicating that it was willing to repay the facility within two months by assigning to the plaintiff payments it would receive from MBB. This is how the material parts of the first defendant's letter of 4 May 1999 to the plaintiff reads:

Seri Mukali Sdn Bhd has already obtained its financing for the above project from Malayan Banking Berhad (copy enclosed). But, it takes time to do the paper work before the draw down. In order not to delay the project, we sincerely hope you can consider our request favourably.

For this purpose, we will assign the payment from Malayan Banking Berhad up to RM2.0million to Bank Industri Malaysia Berhad.

We estimate that the utilisation of the Bridging Line will not be more than two months.

[7]In response to the first defendant's request, the plaintiff wrote back on 19 May 1999 wanting more details about Seri Mukali's claims against MBB. On 20 July 1999 the plaintiff wrote to the first defendant agreeing to allow the first defendant to utilise the Bridging Line facility to purchase the engine provided the plaintiff received an undertaking from MBB to make payment direct to it (the plaintiff) instead of to SeriMukali under the shipbuilding agreement for MT 'Sheta'. The material part of the plaintiff's letter of 20 July 1999 to the first defendant reads:

Further to your letter dated 14 July 1999 pertaining to the utilisation of the abovementioned facility for the issuance of letter of credit in respect of the engine to be installed in the vessel financed by Maybank, please be informed that we would be agreeable on such arrangement provided Maybank agrees to give us an undertaking to make payment directly to Bank Industri upon finalisation of heir loan with Seri Mukali Sdn Bhd based on the progress claims as reflected in the shipbuilding agreement of MT Sheta.

[8]In response to the above letter, the first defendant wrote to the plaintiff on 9August 1999 saying that since it was Seri Mukali who was obtaining the loan from MBB, it was Seri Mukali and not MBB who should give the undertaking requested by the plaintiff.

[9]The next day, ie on 10 August 1999, Seri Mukali wrote to the plaint