Moses Susayan J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]This judgment concerns the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiff claims RM 1,871,900.00 based on a friendly loan agreement, while the defendant raises misrepresentation and fraud as his defence and filed a counterclaim

Background Facts

[2]The plaintiff and defendant, who share a business and personal relationship, entered into financial dealings in which the plaintiff initially advanced RM2,050,000.00 to the defendant for investment purposes based on the defendant’s representations of high returns. When the defendant failed to deliver the promised returns, both parties executed a friendly loan agreement dated 09.05.2023, wherein the defendant acknowledged the loan and agreed to repay the amount.

[3]The plaintiff advanced the sum through bank transfers and cash deposits as directed by the defendant. The defendant made partial repayments totalling RM178,100.00, leaving a balance of RM1,871,900.00 unpaid. Despite a letter of demand issued on 31.10.2023, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount.

[4]The defendant claims the agreement was signed under misrepresentation and fraud, alleging it was merely a formality to satisfy the plaintiff’s wife. Further, the defendant disputes receiving the full loan amount, citing inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s bank records.

[5]The plaintiff seeks summary judgment for the unpaid balance, while the defendant counterclaims for the agreement to be declared null and void due to fraud and misrepresentation.

Summary Judgment - Applicable Law

[6]Under Order 14 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012, a plaintiff may apply for summary judgment when:

“(1) 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 claim or part thereof except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgement against that defendant.”

[7]The purpose of summary judgment is to enable the swift and cost-effective disposal of cases where the plaintiff’s claim is clear, and the defendant raises no reasonable defence. The rule prevents unwarranted delays and eliminates the need for a full trial when the defence is deemed frivolous or unsustainable.

[8]To successfully oppose a summary judgment application, the defendant must raise a triable issue. A triable issue warrants further examination at trial, either due to disputed material facts or complex questions of law. The test is whether the defence is bona fide and supported by sufficient evidence, not merely bare assertions or unsubstantiated claims.

[9]In Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors , the Supreme Court emphasised that the defendant need not show a complete defence but must demonstrate that an issue exists that is worthy of judicial consideration. The court must scrutinise the affidavits and evidence presented to determine if the defence is genuine, plausible, and not a mere attempt to delay proceedings. It is stated at Held No (1) as follows:

“In an application under O 14, the court has to be satisfied on affidavit evidence that the defence has not only raised an issue, but also that the said issue is triable. The determination of whether an issue is or is not triable depends on the facts or the law arising from each case as disclosed in the affidavit evidence before the court. A complete defence need not be shown. The defence set up need only show that there is a triable issue.”

[10]Furthermore, in CIMB Bank Bhd v Consobiz Ventures Sdn Bhd & Ors [2018] CLJU 1336 ; , the court elaborated that a defendant cannot simply deny the plaintiff’s claim without any supporting evidence. A defence that lacks substance or credibility will not defeat an application for summary judgment. The court retains the discretion to reject defences that are inconsistent, improbable, or unsupported by material evidence. Justice Mohd Nazlan (as he then was) expressed:

“[