ANSON ANG 1. ) LOO KAISIN 2. ) BUSINESS PIXEL SDN. BHD.

ANSON ANG 1. ) LOO KAISIN 2. ) BUSINESS PIXEL SDN. BHD.

The Defendants failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden to show bona fide disputes of fact or documentary evidence requiring a trial; the Deed is a written contract whose interpretation is a question of law determinable on its terms; absent admissible evidence of any valid variation or subsequent event, conversion to a writ was unwarranted and the application to convert was dismissed.

Citation
WA-24NCC-94-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Anson Ang; Defendant: Loo Kaisin; Defendant: Business Pixel Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 September 2025
Case Number
WA-24NCC-94-02/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Application to Convert Originating Summons to Writ; High Court Decision Dismissing Conversion
Outcome
Application by the Defendants to convert the Originating Summons into a Writ action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contract, Conversion of Originating Summons to Writ, Indemnity Obligations, Guarantor Removal, Default Judgment (judgment in Default of Appearance), Burden of Proof on Application
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Commercial Law Guarantee and Indemnity Interpretation of Contract Conversion of Originating Summons to Writ Indemnity Obligations +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anson Ang

Plaintiff

Loo Kaisin

Defendant

Business Pixel Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (commercial Division) / Application to Convert Originating Summons to Writ; High Court Decision Dismissing Conversion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Originating Summons should be converted to a writ action due to alleged substantial disputes of fact
  2. 2 Whether the Deed of Agreement and Indemnity is binding and/or varied by subsequent events
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory reliefs and indemnity under the Deed

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to discharge the legal and evidential burden to show bona fide disputes of fact or documentary evidence requiring a trial; the Deed is a written contract whose interpretation is a question of law determinable on its terms; absent admissible evidence of any valid variation or subsequent event, conversion to a writ was unwarranted and the application to convert was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application by the Defendants to convert the Originating Summons into a Writ action dismissed.

Orders

  • Application by the Defendants to convert the Originating Summons into a Writ action dismissed.