Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer JCA:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1]The appellant/plaintiff appealed against the decision of the learned High Court judge who dismissed the appellant’s claim against the 5^th defendant/respondent who on record was a director as well as a signatory to the Joint and Several Guarantee and Indemnity Agreement (Guarantee) executed by the respondent.

[2]The main line of defence of the respondent was that (i) he was not a director of the company and in consequence all documents related to his directorship was forged; (ii) he did not sign the Guarantee.

[3]In a 17-page judgment, the learned trial judge had set out the relevant facts and reasons for his decision. On the face of record, it was a speaking judgment but upon hearing the submission of the appellant, we took the view that the learned trial judge had erred in law as well as fact in coming to the conclusion to deny the judgment to the plaintiff. In the instant case, the learned trial judge failed to take into consideration the following, namely:

(a)the respondent did not respond to the appellant’s notice of demand related to a claim of RM3,638,518.87;

(b)the respondent did not make a police report when his case is that the appellant’s documents were forged;

(c)the respondent failed to challenge the appellant’s solicitor who witnessed the Guarantee;

(d)there was no appreciation of the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6R. 67, H.L.;

(e)the expert witness who gave evidence for the respondent did not deal with the Guarantee at all and the signatures he was referring to was in relation to share transfer forms and not the Guarantee;

(f)confusion of matters relating to Form 49 and signatures therein;

(g)the letter by the respondent dated 14-9-2011 signed by the respondent as director of the 1^st defendant, and attaching 12 cheques as instalments for payment of debt for the facilities granted to the 1^st defendant, was an admission of liability as well as destroyed the respondent’s defence as well as it affirmed that the respondent was not a witness of truth. The said letter dated 14-9-2011 reads as follows:

“CHAMPION GROWTH SDN BHD (483762-A)

C/O 7-1 A, 1^st FLOOR, JALAN SR6/1, TAMAN SERDANG RAYA, SERI KEMBANGAN, SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN

Rujukan Tuan: LIT/12834/09/SMF-54

Tarikh : 14hb September 2011

Bank Perusahaan Kecil & Sederhana Malaysia Berhad

Menara SME Bank

Tingkat 12

Jalan Sultan Ismail

50774 Kuala Lumpur

U/P : Puan Christina Abdul Manaf/ Mariam Binti Atan

Tuan,

CHAMPION GROWTH SDN BHD

PENAGGUHAN TINDAKAN UNDANG-UNDANG SEMENTARA

DAN CADANGAN PEMBAYARAN

Dengan hormatnya kami merujuk perjumpaan di pejabat tuan pada 14hb September 2011 serta perbincangan mengenai pembayaran balik pinjaman berkenaan.

Seperti dalam perbincangan, perniagaan kami masih tidak memuaskan. Ini kerana syarikat besar seperti AIA, Rockwil dan lain-lain enggan memberikan kontrak kepada syarikat kami. Mereka semuanya ini hilang yakin ke atas kami. Oleh itu, pada masa kini kami hanya dapat kontrak kerja kecil sahaja. Maka pendapatan kami hanya cukup membiayai perbelanjaan seperti gaji pekerja, air, elektrik, stationary dan perbelanjaan harian.

Kami sebenarnya mendapat jumpa dengan beberapa pelabur untuk melaburkan modal ke dalam syarikat ini, tetapi apabila mereka memeriksa akaun syarikat ini dapati liabilities tanggungan sebanyak RM4.5 juta. Mereka ini dengan serta-merta menarik diri.

Oleh itu, dalam proses pemulihan balik perniagaan bukan sahaja perlu banyak perkara perlu diuruskan serta mengumpulkan modal untuk pembiayaan operasi pembelanjaan tetapi perlu banyak masa untuk memulihkan keyakianan dari klient lama.

Kami di sini ingin meminta pihak SME dapat menimbangkan keadaan kami serta cadangan-cadangan kami berikutnya dengan menangguh-kan tindakan undang-undang terhadap syarikat ini.

Olen itu kami perlu sedikit masa lanjutan sebanyak 12 bulan siap sedia menguruskan proses permulihan pernagaan. Kami bercadang membayar balik kaedah bulanan sebanyak RM 1,000.00 sebulan bagi 12 bulan. Adalah dimaklumkan kami juga perlu bayar balik