AHMAD NIZAR BIN SAFIAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

AHMAD NIZAR BIN SAFIAN MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's summary judgment: the Appellant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or produce contemporaneous documentary evidence of a discharge; the guarantee was an express continuing guarantee not discharged by resignation or debt restructuring, and therefore summary judgment was properly entered against the Appellant.

Citation
WA-12ANCC-59-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant (guarantor): Ahmad Nizar bin Safian; Respondent (bank): Malayan Banking Berhad
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 August 2024
Case Number
WA-12ANCC-59-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (summary Judgment) / High Court Hearing of Appeal (rehearing Under Order 55 R.2)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Continuing Guarantee, Summary Judgment, Discharge of Guarantor, Variation/restructuring of Facility, Estoppel/waiver, Contracts Act S86
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Suretyship/guarantee Law Continuing Guarantee Summary Judgment Discharge of Guarantor Variation/restructuring of Facility +2 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmad Nizar bin Safian

Appellant (guarantor)

Malayan Banking Berhad

Respondent (bank)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (summary Judgment) / High Court Hearing of Appeal (rehearing Under Order 55 R.2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Court was correct to enter summary judgment against the guarantor
  2. 2 Whether the guarantor was discharged by oral assurances from a bank officer or by his exit from the company
  3. 3 Whether the restructuring/extension of the facility discharged or varied the guarantor's obligations under the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's summary judgment: the Appellant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or produce contemporaneous documentary evidence of a discharge; the guarantee was an express continuing guarantee not discharged by resignation or debt restructuring, and therefore summary judgment was properly entered against the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Respondent in the sum of RM5,000.00 subject to allocator