Yusrin Faidz Yusoff JC:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

[1]This matter concerns two interlocutory appeals, the decisions of which were handed down on 22 May 2025, namely:

(a)Appeal No. WA-12AM-4-01/2025 - the appellant’s (“defendant”) appeal against the learned Sessions Court Judge’s (“SCJ”) decision dated 14 January 2025, which allowed the respondent’s (“plaintiff”) application for summary judgment under Enclosure 8, with costs of RM1,500.00; and

(b)Appeal No. WA-12AM-3-01/2025 - the defendant’s appeal against the learned SCJ’s decision dated 14 January 2025, which allowed the plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 7 to strike out the defendant’s counterclaim, with costs of RM1,500.00.

BACKGROUND FACTS

[2]Pureman Venture Sdn Bhd (“Pureman Venture”) was a customer of the plaintiff bank, who had applied for financing. Based on an Offer Letter dated 28 September 2018, the plaintiff granted Pureman Venture with a BizFinancing-i Commodity Murabahah facility amounting to RM500,000.00 under account No. 60070226 (“Facility”). Pursuant to a Guarantee dated 28 September 2018 (“Guarantee”), the defendant has agreed to guarantee all outstanding payments of the said Facility.

[3]The chronology of material events and procedural developments is as follows:

(a)The plaintiff commenced proceedings against Pureman Venture and the defendant in the Sessions Court via Writ of Summons filed on 30 April 2021 in Suit No. WA-B52M-121-04/2021 (“Suit 121”);

(b)On 30 June 2021, judgment in default of appearance was entered against both Pureman Venture and the defendant;

(c)Pureman Venture was subsequently wound up on 26 June 2022;

(d)The defendant’s application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 16 December 2022;

(e)On appeal (Appeal No. WA-12AM-11-12/2022), the High Court, on 20 March 2023, set aside the default judgment against defendant on the ground that the Statement of Claim served on the defendant in Suit 121 was undated. The Court further directed the plaintiff to re-serve duly sealed, signed, and dated cause papers within 14 days;

(f)However, instead of refiling or amending the Statement of Claim, the plaintiff’s solicitors unilaterally inserted a date and re-served the Writ and Statement of Claim via registered post on 13 April 2023. This act prompted the defendant to file a striking-out application, contending that the Writ in Suit 121 had expired and the Statement of Claim remained procedurally defective;

(g)On 12 July 2023, the Sessions Court allowed the defendant’s striking-out application with cost of RM3,000.00 to the defendant. Plaintiff was nevertheless granted liberty to file a fresh action;

(h)The defendant’s appeal against the Sessions Court’s grant of liberty to refile was dismissed by the High Court on 20 October 2023 (see: Appeal No. WA-12AM-7-07/2023; Ooi Swee King v Standard Chartered Saadiq Bhd

(i)Pursuant to that liberty, the plaintiff issued a fresh letter of demand cum termination against the defendant on 4 December 2023;

(j)Subsequently, on 14 June 2024, the plaintiff commenced the present suit against the defendant (“Suit 937”);

(k)The defendant filed his defence and counterclaim in Suit 937 on 11 September 2024;

(l)The plaintiff filed both the summary judgment application (Enclosure 8) and the application to strike out the defendant’s counterclaim (Enclosure 7) concurrently on 11 October 2024;

(m)On 14 January 2025, the learned SCJ allowed the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment (Enclosure 8) in the sum of RM551,864.35 as at 10 June 2024, and also granted the plaintiff’s application to strike out the defendant’s counterclaim (Enclosure 7); and

(n)Aggrieved, the defendant filed notices of appeal to the High Court against both decisions on 22 January 2025.

[4]The appeals were heard on 28 April 2025. Following careful consideration of the submissions presented, I delivered my decision on 22 May 2025, dismissing both appeals. Costs were awarded in the sum of RM3,000.00 for the appeal concerning Enclosu