AMBANK (M) BERHAD GETS GLOBAL BERHAD

AMBANK (M) BERHAD GETS GLOBAL BERHAD

Plaintiff met the O.14 preliminary requirements and established a prima facie case; the defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue that would require a trial, the facility agreement lawfully permitted concurrent remedies and the demand was validly served under its notice clause, and the Certificate of Indebtedness stood as prima facie proof unrefuted by evidence of miscalculation; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the plaintiff.

Citation
22NCC-432-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: AMBANK (M) BERHAD; Defendant: GETS GLOBAL BERHAD (formerly known as KBES BERHAD)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 June 2020
Case Number
22NCC-432-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit Summary Judgment Application Under O.14 Rules of Court 2012 / Hearing on Summary Judgment; Grounds of Decision (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Facility Agreement, Third Party Legal Charge, Notice of Demand, Certificate of Indebtedness, Triable Issue, Concurrent Remedies, Variation of Facility Terms, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Property Security (charge/foreclosure) Summary Judgment Facility Agreement Third Party Legal Charge Notice of Demand +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMBANK (M) BERHAD

Plaintiff

GETS GLOBAL BERHAD (formerly known as KBES BERHAD)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit Summary Judgment Application Under O.14 Rules of Court 2012 / Hearing on Summary Judgment; Grounds of Decision (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff satisfied preliminary requirements for summary judgment under O.14
  2. 2 Whether defendant raised any triable issue requiring a full trial
  3. 3 Whether lender was required to foreclose charged property before suing in personam (abuse of process)

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff met the O.14 preliminary requirements and established a prima facie case; the defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue that would require a trial, the facility agreement lawfully permitted concurrent remedies and the demand was validly served under its notice clause, and the Certificate of Indebtedness stood as prima facie proof unrefuted by evidence of miscalculation; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment allowed
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant