SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT (KUALA LUMPUR)
DATO' MARY LIM THIAM SUAN, J
RHB Bank Berhad – Appellant
Versus
Seni Maju Sdn Bhd & Ors – Respondent
GUAMAN SIVIL NO D22-27-2006



Advocates:
Bahari Yeow (Conrad Lopez with him) (Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill) for the Plaintiff
K S Lam (KS Lam & Co) for the 1st Defendant
David Samuel (Chambers of Firdaus) for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th & 9th Defendants
Surinjit Sidhu (Marshita Surin & Associates) for the 7th Defendant

A continuing guarantee remains binding despite changes in bank identity or structure, as long as the parties' intention is clear, ensuring all signatories are liable for the debts incurred under the agreements.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act 1965 - Section 23(6) - Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 - Section 50(3) - Claim for outstanding facilities - Plaintiff sought recovery against multiple defendants for unpaid banking facilities secured under several guarantees. Covenants in guarantees provided continuity of liability despite name changes and mergers of banks. Defendants claimed liability depended on whether agreements were enforceable post-merger; court affirmed the distinct nature of facilities under each bank and held all defendants liable. (Paras 1 to 4, 186 to 196)

(B) Guarantee - Nature and effect - Court examined the concept of continuing guarantees and determined substitutions of guarantors do not relieve previous guarantors of liability unless explicitly intended. Courts to uphold clear contractual terms. (Paras 135, 166)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff bank initiated a claim against the 1st Defendant for outstanding sums under facilities originally granted by two banks which later merged into the Plaintiff. Defendants claimed improper consolidation of accounts disallowed them to contest liability effectively - encounter complex corporate mergers. (Paras 1 to 4)

Findings of Court:
1st Defendant liable for full sum due under various facilities with interest; other defendants held liable for their respective guarantees relating to different facilities. (Paras 214 to 230)

Issues: Whether all defendants are liable regardless of the identity of lending banks and the effects of guarantees following the Plaintiff’s corporate restructuring. (Paras 11, 186)

Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled guarantees remain binding as they were intended to be continuing, affirming liability of all defendants as borrowers and guarantors despite arguments on merger complexities. (Paras 93, 156)

Result: Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff with specified liabilities assigned to each Defendant.

DATO' MARY LIM THIAM SUAN J

A tale of two banks

First, there were two banks. Then, there was one. Over the course of some ten odd years, the 1st Defendant entered into arrangements for various banking facilities with the two banks at different points in time. The 2nd to the 9th Defendants stood as guarantors of the various banking facilities. The first set of banking facilities will be referred to as "the DCB facilities" while the second set will be referred to as "the BU facilities".

The single bank now claims for all the banking facilities that the 1st Defendant took with the two banks. The challenge faced by the parties and the Court here is to unravel all those arrangements before the respective Defendants' liabilities, if any, can be determined. These are material facts.

The first bank - the DCB Facilities Between 1994 and 1995, the 1 Defendant was granted various banking facilities by the first bank; then known as "Development & Commercial Bank Berhad" [D & C Bank]. The first can be found in a letter of offer dated 4.2.1994 [1st letter of offer] and a facility agreement dated 12.7.1994 [1st facility agreement]. Inter alia, it included an overdraft of RM1.15 million and a letter of guarantee of RM350.000.00 [1st Facilities].

Through a second letter of offer dated 1.6.1994 [2nd letter of offer] and facility agreement dated 1.9.1994 [2nd facility agreement], D & C Bank granted the 1st Defendant additional banking facilities of inter alia, an overdraft of RM5 million and a letter of guarantee of RM3 million [2nd Facilities].

By letter dated 3.11.1994 [3rd letter of offer], D & C Bank amended the provision of "security" under item (d) in the 2nd letter of offer.

On 17.12.1994, D & C Bank changed its name to DCB Bank Berhad [DCB Bank].

The 1st Defendant then renewed the 1st Facilities and the 2nd Facilities upon the terms and conditions found in letter of offer dated 19.8.1995 [4th letter of offer]. The 1st Facilities and the 2nd Facilities were secured inter alia by the following:

(i)a joint and several guarantee dated 12.11.1994 executed bythe 2nd to the 6th Defendants - 1st guarantee

(ii)a deed of assignment of the contract proceeds dated 1.9.1994executed between D & C Bank and the 1st Defendant[Pembinaan YCS Berhad] - 1st assignment

(iii)a deed of assignment of the contract proceeds dated 9.11.1994executed between D & C Bank and the 1st Defendant [DanecCorporation Sdn Bhd] - 2nd assignment

(iv)a deed of assignment dated 9.5.1995 executed between DCBBank and the 1st Defendant [Ho Hup Construction CompanyBerhad] - 3rd assignment

(v)a deed of assignment dated 13.2.1996 executed between DCBBank and the 1st Defendant [Dekon Sdn Bhd] -4th assignment

(vi)a deed of assignment dated 28.6.1996 executed between DCBBank and the 1st Defendant [Europlus Corporation Sdn Bhd forDrainage works to terrace factory Phase 1 & 2 at Bandar BukitBeruntung] - 5th assignment

(vii)a deed of assignment dated 16.6.1997 executed between DCBBank and the 1st Defendant [Noble Rights Sdn Bhd for drainageworks for Rancangan Perumahan dan Perusahaan Lot No 1722Mukim of Serendah] - 6th assignment Under the terms of both facilities as found in the letters of offer and the agreements, the 1st Defendant was to pay DCB Bank inter alia interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum over and above the Base Lending Rate from time to time; and additional interest in the event the 1st Defendant exceeded the limit of the overdraft facility.

On 1.7.1997, there was another name change. This time, DCB Bank changed its name to RHB Bank Berhad. The related letters and documents must now be read to accord with the change in D & C Bank's name to DCB Bank and later to its present name of RHB Bank Berhad.

The second bank - the BU Facilities Between 1995 and 2002, the 1st Defendant took out several other facilities with the second bank, Bank Utama (Malaysia) Berhad [Bank Utama]. The first facility can be found in Bank Utama's letter of offer dated 4.10.1995 [5th letter of offer] and facility agreem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top