Summary judgment requires timely compliance with filing procedures, and defendants must show triable issues; technical non-compliance cannot obstruct justice.

[1] This is an appeal against the learned Sessions Court Judge's decision in allowing the respondent's application to enter summary judgment against the appellant on 21 October 2013.

[2] These are the facts of the respondent's claim. The respondent was appointed by the appellant as its subcontractor in a project for the "Construction and Completion of Roadworks within Lot Boundary for 44 units apartment (RP 10) for Cadangan Perumahan di atas Lot PT 13431 Mukim Hulu Kelang, Daerah Gombak, Selangor Darul Ehsan for RM890,720.50".

[3] The respondent claimed that it had completed the works including variation works to which a Statement of Final Account was issued to the effect that the appellant was owing the respondent a sum of RM105,600.70. The appellant issued a cheque for that sum. However, when the respondent presented the cheque for payment, the appellant instructed its bank to stop payment on the cheque. The respondent then filed the present claim. It is not premised on a dishonoured cheque but for a debt due.

[4] After the statement of claim had been served on the appellant on 29 August 2013, the appellant filed its memorandum of appearance on 18 September 2013. Its defence and counterclaim was filed on 16 October 2013.

[5] Meanwhile, the respondent filed an application to enter summary judgment on 23 September 2013. Upon receipt of the application, the appellant's solicitors informed the respondent that the director in charge of the matter was away overseas and would only be returning on 1 October 2013. The solicitors requested for time to file cause papers, in particular the affidavit in reply. It also requested the solicitors of the respondent to mention on its behalf on 30 September 2013 when the case would be coming up for management.

[6] That was duly done. On that day, the Court fixed the respondent's application for hearing on 21 October 2013. On 1 October 2013, a sealed copy of the respondent's application was served on the appellant. According to O 32 r 13(2) of the Rules of 2012, the appellant was required to file any affidavit in reply within 14 days from the date of service of the application and the affidavit in support. The appellant did not. Instead, it filed its affidavit in reply a day before the hearing and served a copy of the affidavit in reply on the respondent only on the day of hearing. That affidavit was sworn on 18 October 2013.

[7] On the day of hearing, the respondent objected to the late filing and service of the affidavit in reply. After hearing submissions, the learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the objection, disregarded the affidavit in reply and entered judgment summarily against the appellant.

[8] The law in this respect is in fact, trite. The first consideration in any application for summary judgment is to consider whether the applicant plaintiff has satisfied the preliminary requirements. Those requirements are that the defendant must have entered an appearance; the statement of claim must have been served on the defendant; and the affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of O 14 r 2 in that it must state the deponent's belief that there is no defence to the claim. Once these requirements are met, the plaintiff will have established a prima facie case and the plaintiff will become entitled to judgment. It is then upon the defendant to shift the burden by satisfying the Court on why judgment should not be entered.

[9] The defendant must raise or show that the issue raised is a triable issue or an issue which merits a trial for its determination. It is not enough for the defendant "to raise an issue or any issue" (see Federal Court's decision in Voo Min En & Ors v. Leong Chung Fatt, ). The defendant is not however, required to show that