Back
2026 MarsdenLR 6006
Reported by Ashok Kumar
IDS Medical System (M) Sdn Bhd v Tawau Specialist Medical Centre Sabah Sdn Bhd [2026] 8 MLJ 648
Copy Citation
Malayan Law Journal Reports
HIGH COURT (TAWAU) STEVE RITIKOS JC SUIT NO TWU-22NCVC-21–8 OF 2025 (HC) 14 January 2026 Case Summary Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Triable issues — Whether defendant had failed to show any cogent or good reason why plaintiff’s claim against it ought to be tried — Whether plaintiff had satisfied all requirements under the law for it to obtain summary judgment on its claim against the defendant
The plaintiff (‘P’) applied for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 on its claim for RM3,842,204.90 against the defendant (‘D’) in respect of goods supplied and delivered to D on D’s request. The said sum was the balance remaining for the sale of the goods after taking into account partial payments, amounting to RM5.52m, that D had made. In resisting the summary judgment application, D had contended, inter alia, that P’s claim was not only time-barred under item 95 of the Schedule to Sabah’s Limitation Ordinance, but that the claim was unenforceable because the contract between the parties was subject to a re-financing scheme involving a third party (‘PTL’) which never materialised due to P’s default. D also raised a counterclaim for RM364,487.33 against P.
Held, allowing the summary judgment application:
(1)D’s assertion of the existence of a re-financing arrangement was a mere allegation devoid of merits as there was no documentary evidence to show that such an arrangement existed. The allegation failed to amount to a triable issue to counter the summary judgment application (see paras 41–42 & 46).(2)Having made payments totalling RM5.52m to P, D could not approbate and at the same time reprobate by accepting the goods and later saying that the contracts were illegal and void and lacking in consideration. D failed to show how its contract with P for the supply and delivery of the goods was illegal (see paras 50–51).(3)There was no merit to D’s contention that P’s claim was time-barred. When the instant action was filed, limitation had not kicked in (see para 54).(4)The documentary evidence tendered by D failed to show any payment being made to P in respect of the goods supplied. There were only documents to show that D had purportedly made payments to PTL; but this had no bearing on the D’s debt to P for the goods supplied in 2020. There were no defects or contradictions in P’s accounting in arriving at the amount claimed in the summary judgment application (see paras 60–61 & 69).(5)D’s counterclaim was founded on the premise that the contract between the parties was subject to a refinancing scheme. Since the court had found that there was no such scheme, the counterclaim failed (see paras 74–75).(6)P had established a clear and unequivocal claim for the goods it had sold and delivered to D. D had not raised any triable issue or shown any fair or reasonable defence to P’s claim (see para 77).
Plaintif (‘P’) telah memohon penghakiman terus di bawah A 14 Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 mengenai tuntutannya sebanyak RM3,842,204.90 terhadap defendan (‘D’) berkaitan barangan yang telah dibekalkan dan diserahkan kepada D atas permintaan D. Jumlah tersebut merupakan baki harga jualan barangan berkenaan selepas mengambil kira bayaran sebahagian berjumlah RM5.52 juta yang telah dibuat oleh D. Dalam membantah permohonan penghakiman terus tersebut, D, antara lain, berhujah bahawa tuntutan P bukan sahaja telah luput tempoh had di bawah item 95 Jadual kepada Ordinan Had Masa Sabah, malah tuntutan tersebut juga tidak boleh dikuatkuasakan kerana kontrak antara pihak-pihak adalah tertakluk kepada suatu skim pembiayaan semula yang melibatkan pihak ketiga (‘PTL’) yang tidak pernah terlaksana akibat kegagalan pembayaran oleh P. D juga telah mengemukakan tuntutan balas terhadap P berjumlah RM364,487.33.
Diputuskan, membenarkan permohonan penghakiman terus:
(1)Dakwaan D mengenai kewujudan suatu rancangan pembiayaan semula hanyalah suatu tuduhan semata-mata tanpa merit kerana tiada sebarang keterangan dokumentari yang menunjukkan bahawa rancangan sedemikian wujud. Dakwaan tersebut gagal menimbulkan suatu isu yang perlu dibicarakan bagi membantah permohonan penghakiman terus (lihat perenggan 41–42 & 46).(2)Setelah membuat bayaran berjumlah RM5.52 juta kepada P, D tidak boleh tidak boleh menerima dan pada masa yang sama menolak dengan menerima barangan tersebut dan kemudiannya menyatakan bahawa kontrak-kontrak itu adalah tidak sah, terbatal dan tidak mempunyai balasan. D gagal menunjukkan bagaimana kontraknya dengan P bagi pembekalan dan penyerahan barang-barang tersebut adalah menyalahi undang-undang (lihat perenggan 50–51).(3)Tiada merit dalam hujahan D bahawa tuntutan P telah luput tempoh had. Pada masa tindakan ini difailkan, tempoh had belum lagi bermula (lihat perenggan 54).(4)Keterangan dokumentari yang dikemukakan oleh D gagal menunjukkan bahawa sebarang bayaran telah dibuat kepada P mengenai barangan yang dibekalkan. Dokumen yang ada hanya menunjukkan bahawa D kononnya telah membuat bayaran kepada PTL; namun hal ini tidak mempunyai sebarang kaitan dengan hutang D kepada P bagi barangan yang dibekalkan pada tahun 2020. Tiada kesilapan atau percanggahan dalam pengiraan akaun oleh P dalam menentukan jumlah yang dituntut dalam permohonan penghakiman terus tersebut (lihat perenggan 60–61 & 69).(5)Tuntutan balas D adalah berasaskan alasan bahawa kontrak antara pihak-pihak tertakluk kepada suatu skim pembiayaan semula. Memandangkan mahkamah mendapati bahawa tiada skim sedemikian wujud, tuntutan balas tersebut adalah gagal (lihat perenggan 74–75).(6)P telah membuktikan suatu tuntutan yang jelas dan tidak dipertikaikan terhadap barangan yang telah dijual dan diserahkan kepada D. D tidak menimbulkan sebarang isu yang perlu dibicarakan atau menunjukkan sebarang pembelaan yang adil atau munasabah terhadap tuntutan P (lihat perenggan 77).Cases referred to
Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400; [1992] 1 CLJ Rep 14; [1992] 1 CLJ 627, SC (refd)
Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v Arab-Malaysian Merchant Bank Bhd [1995] 3 MLJ 331, FC (refd)
Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685; [2006] 3 CLJ 544, FC (refd)
Chee Hock Leong & Anor v Teh Yong Khoon & Ors [2022] MLJU 2925; [2025] 2 MLRA 348, HC (refd)
Eng Mee Yong & Ors v Letchumanan [1979] 2 MLJ 212; [1979] CLJU 18, PC (refd)
Inai Kiara Sdn Bhd & Anor v Macon Charter BV [2022] MLJU 1274; [2022] 5 MLRA 446, CA (refd)
Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong and another appeal [2025] 6 MLJ 327; [2026] 1 MLRA 1, FC (refd)
Menaka v Lum Kum Chum [1977] 1 MLJ 91; [1976] 1 MLRA 592, PC (refd)
National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300; [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 283; [1984] 2 CLJ 220, FC (refd)
Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281 ; [1995] 1 MLRA 48, CA (folld)
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd [2014] SCD 83; [2014] 2 SLR 1342, HC (refd)
Legislation referred to
Contracts Act 1950 ss 2(d), 24, 26, 60, 61
Limitation Ordinance (Cap 72) Schedule, item 95
Rules of Court 2012 O 14, O 14 rr 1, 3
Pearl Lee (Shim Pang & Tawau) and (Andy Tay) (Andy Tay & Assoc) for the plaintiff. Roland Cheng (Roland Cheng & Co) for the defendant.
Steve Ritikos JC:
THE APPLICATION
[1]Enclosure 5 is the plaintiff’s notice of application under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court for summary judgment to be entered against the defendant for the sum of RM3,842,204.90 as at the 6 July 2025, interest at the rate of 1% per month on the outstanding sum from 7 July 2025 until full realisation, costs on a solicitor and client basis and any further or other relief as the court deems just and fit.
[2]The cause papers which will be referred to in this application are:
(a)the plaintiff’s statement of claim dated 1 August 2025 (encl 2) (‘SOC’);(b)defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim dated 26 August 2025 (encl 8) (‘SOD’);(c)plaintiff’s statement of reply to the defence and statement of defence to counterclaim dated 10 September 2025 (encl 11);(d)defendant’s reply to plaintiff’s defence to counterclaim dated 22 September 2025 (encl 13);(e)the notice of application (encl 5) (‘NOA’);(f)the affidavit in support affirmed by Au Eng Chuan on the 19 August 2025 (encl 6) (‘AIS’);(g)the affidavit in opposition affirmed by Lim Nyuk Fah on the 4 September 2025 (encl 10) (‘AIO’); and(h)the affidavit in reply affirmed by Au Eng Chuan on the 12 September 2025 (encl 12) (‘AIR’).THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
[3]The plaintiff’s claim is for the sum of RM3,842,204.90 calculated as at 6 July 2025 being outstanding monies for the supply and deliveries of medical supplies and equipment issued via a series of purchase orders (‘PO’) around 2020 by the defendant to the plaintiff (‘the goods’). The goods were supplied and delivered to the defendant in accordance with the terms of the PO, which were acknowledged receipt by the defendant in good and acceptable manner via delivery orders (‘DO’). The PO and DO create a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
[4]The plaintiff issued invoices for the goods supplied, and duly received by the defendant. The terms of payment stipulated in the invoices required the defendant to settle the amount due within one month from the date of the invoices, failing which interest at the rate of 1% per month would be levied on the outstanding sums until the date of full realisation.
[5]The plaintiff had performed its obligations under the contract, however the defendant failed to make full payment for the goods supplied. Partial payments were made toward the invoices however the last payment made was on or around July 2024, and agreed interest at the rate of 1% per month was charged from the due date for all overdue payments.
[6]As at 6 July 2025, the total outstanding amount due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff stood at RM3,842,204.90, after deducting partial payments of RM5.52m.
[7]The defendant has failed, neglected, or refused to settle the outstanding amount, despite repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff.
[8]The writ was served on the defendant on 5 August 2025. The defendant filed a memorandum of appearance on 13 August 2025.
[9]The plaintiff’s claim is plain and obvious and the defendant has no defence to the plaintiff’s claim.
ISSUE: THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED ANY TRIABLE ISSUE OR SHOW ANY FAIR OR REASONABLE DEFENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
Principles applicable in summary judgment applications
[10]It is incumbent upon the court to determine whether the preconditions for the grant of summary judgment have been satisfied. In National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300; [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 283; [1984] 2 CLJ 220 (FC), the Federal Court held that:
For the purpose of an application under O 14 the preliminary requirements are:
(a)the defendant must have entered an appearance;(b)the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; and(c)the affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of r 2 of the O14.
... If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either of these considerations, the summons may be dismissed. If, however, these considera
