A claimant must substantiate claims with verified documentation; disputes stop summary judgment if triable issues exist.

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge given on 1 December 2020 allowing summary judgment against the Appellant for the sum of RM 427,855.46 as of 29 February 2020 and interest at 5% per annum on the said amount from date of summons till full realization and cost of RM 5,000.00

Background

[2] Respondent is in the business of selling palm kernel shell (hereinafter referred to as "PKS") to the Appellant. During material time, Respondent have sold and delivered PKS to the Appellant and the Appellant had received the said PKS from Respondent.

[3] Parties have been in this business of buying and selling PKS since 2014. As such parties have developed into a friendly and accommodating relationship. Therefore for past delivery of PKS, Respondent did not demand payment immediately after it was delivered and received by the Appellant. Respondent had been accommodating and relaxed when it comes to payment throughout their business relationship until it takes a turn in 2018 and/or early 2019.

[4] In 2018 and/or early 2019, Respondent claimed that Appellant had been late in making payment for the PKS that they have received from the Respondent. This results in amount due and owing to the Respondents accumulating. Even though Appellant did make payments, it did not cover the amount due.

[5] Respondent vide letter dated 12 March 2020 demanded from the Appellant the amount due and owing but it is of no avail; hence the Respondent filed this suit against the Appellant.

[6] In response to the O 14 application, Appellant claims that it is within the Respondent's knowledge that Appellant is involved in a glove making industry under Smart Glove Group.

[7] As for the receipt of goods delivered by Respondent and received by Appellant it is subject to inspection. In the said Purchase Order it is clearly stated "All goods signed for in order upon receipt shall be deemed only to be an acknowledgement of goods received. A reasonable time period for inspection and test observation is a condition attached to this order. Any manner of exclusion in this matter either written or otherwise may render this order void at our discretion".

[8] Respondent knew the Appellant's depend on their palm kernel because it is to be used as source of energy to be supplied to the Appellant's factories that manufacture the hand gloves. Without the palm kernel being delivered on time, the operation of the factories will be affected.

[9] In response to the Respondent's claim, Appellant in their defence and counter claim stated that the said goods were not delivered as per the time stipulated in Appellant's Purchase Order and the PKS were not of merchantable quality. Appellant also claim that Respondent had suddenly stopped delivering the PKS around June and October 2019, January 2020 and it is within the Respondent's knowledge that the Appellant needs the said PKS to supply energy to factories which produces gloves.

[10] Appellant also claim that the Respondent had committed a concerted practices with other supplier of PKS together with one of the Appellant's officer in Kumpulan Smart Glove (one of Appellant's company) to injure the Appellant.

[11] Appellant further avers that Respondent had no right to claim 1.5% interest per month on the accumulated sum since there is no contractual interest agreed by parties.

Decision

[12] The principles involved in summary judgment are trite and settled. In the all time quoted authority when comes to summary judgment, Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors, 1992 MarsdenLR 798 , Mohd Azmi