Lau Bee Lan JC:

This matter emanates from a Notice of Appeal pursuant to O. 56 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ("the RHC") filed by the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff) against the learned deputy registrar's decision dated 28 February 2002 dismissing the plaintiff's application for summary judgment under O. 14 of the RHC to be entered against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the defendants" or singularly as the "1st defendant, 2nd defendant", "3rd defendant", "4th defendant", "5th defendant" and "6th defendant" as the case may be) with costs in terms of the amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim dated 25 August 2001 and 25 August 2001 respectively.

The plaintiff's summons in chambers application (encl. 17) is essentially on the ground that the defendants have no defence; whilst the defendants' main bone of contention is that the plaintiff had, by verbal promises and assurances to reduce the margin rate of interest charged upon the facility granted to the 1st defendant, reneged upon the alleged promises and assurances which in turn means that the 1st defendant has not committed any default under the facility agreement which attracts the principle of promissory estoppel and constitutes unconscionable conduct on the part of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's application is supported by the following affidavits:

(1) the affidavit of Nicholas Ting Sze Mieng affirmed on 20 October 2000 ("plaintiff's 1st affidavit") (encl. 17).

(2) affidavit in reply of Foo Chow Lee affirmed on 20 December 2000 ("plaintiff's 2nd affidavit") (encl. 23).

(3) affidavit in reply (2) of Foo Chow Lee affirmed on 12 April 2001 ("plaintiff's 3rd affidavit") (encl. 36).

(4) affidavit of Lim Lean See and Koay Teng Seng affirmed on 15 June 2001 ("plaintiff's 4th affidavit") (encl. 43).

The defendants have opposed the application vide the following affidavits:

(a) Affidavit in opposition of Ow Eang Yeow affirmed on 6 November 2000 (for 1st defendant) ("1st defendant's affidavit") (encl. 19).

(b) Affidavit in opposition of Ow Eang Yeow affirmed on 6 November 2000 (for 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th and 6th defendants') ("2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants' affidavit") (encl. 20).

(c) Supplementary affidavit of Ow Eang Yeow affirmed on 18 December 2000 ("defendants' supplementary affidavit") (encl. 25).

(d) Second affidavit in opposition of Ow Eang Yeow affirmed on 31 January 2001 ("defendants' 2nd affidavit") (encl. 32).

(e) Affidavit of Chan Meng Ngai affirmed on 18 May 2001 ("defendants' 3rd affidavit") (encl. 41).

(f) Affidavit in reply of Chan Meng Ngai affirmed on 30 June 2001 ("defendants' 4th affidavit") (encl. 50).

(g) Third affidavit in opposition of Ow Eang Yeow affirmed on 10 July 2001 ("defendants' 5th affidavit") (encl. 48).

The court has considered the pleadings, the respective affidavits, the submissions (both written and oral) of both the learned counsel and the authorities submitted therein. The court's findings and evaluation include the following:

(1) It is not disputed that the plaintiff's claim is made pursuant to:

(i) a letter of offer dated 31 October 1995 ("the facility letter") and as amended by the plaintiff's letter dated 10 November 1995 (exh. NT1 and NT2);

(ii) a facility agreement (between the 1st defendant as the borrower and the plaintiff as the lender dated 18 January 1996 ("the facility agreement") (exh. NT3); and

(iii) a letter of guarantee (between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants as guarantors jointly and severally and the plaintiff) dated 14 December 1995 ("the guarantee") (exh. NT4).

Under the said facility letter the plaintiff had approved the 1st defendant's application for an overdraft facility of RM1,680,000 subject to the terms and conditions contained in the facility letter and the facility agreement.

(2) The law governing an application under O. 14 is trite and the court is mindful of the principles enun