EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 410698-M) 1. SKYSCAPE INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD (No. Syarikat : 343782 – T) 2. SOO MENG KWI (No. K/P : 770209-04-5471) 3. WONG CHEE FAH (No. K/P : 570913-08-6369) 4. LAM KEK BOON (No. K/P : 7030220-01-65
Plaintiff fulfilled procedural and evidential threshold for summary judgment by proving service, defendant appearance and affidavit support; documentary admissions (emails, payments, acknowledgment of delivery) and lack of supporting documentary evidence from Defendants meant no triable issues were raised; guarantors bound by joint and several guarantees and conclusive evidence clause and certificate of indebtedness; therefore summary judgment granted and counterclaim struck out as speculative.
- Citation
- BA-22NCVC-290-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: SKYSCAPE INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: SOO MENG KWI; 3rd Defendant: WONG CHEE FAH; 4th Defendant: LAM KEK BOON
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- Malaysia
- Judgment Date
- 20 January 2020
- Case Number
- BA-22NCVC-290-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
- Procedural Posture
- Civil (debt Recovery / Contract) / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
- Outcome
- Applications allowed. Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against all Defendants; 1st Defendant's counterclaim struck out.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Striking Out Counterclaim, Personal Guarantee, Conclusive Evidence Clause, Certificate of Indebtedness, Estoppel Against Disputing Invoices
- Source Language
- Malay/English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
EFCO (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
Plaintiff
SKYSCAPE INDUSTRIES (M) SDN BHD
1st Defendant
SOO MENG KWI
2nd Defendant
WONG CHEE FAH
3rd Defendant
LAM KEK BOON
4th Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil (debt Recovery / Contract) / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 requirements for summary judgment
- 2 Whether the Defendants raised triable issues to defeat summary judgment
- 3 Whether guarantors are bound by joint and several guarantee and conclusive evidence clause
Ratio Decidendi
Plaintiff fulfilled procedural and evidential threshold for summary judgment by proving service, defendant appearance and affidavit support; documentary admissions (emails, payments, acknowledgment of delivery) and lack of supporting documentary evidence from Defendants meant no triable issues were raised; guarantors bound by joint and several guarantees and conclusive evidence clause and certificate of indebtedness; therefore summary judgment granted and counterclaim struck out as speculative.
Court Disposition
Applications allowed. Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against all Defendants; 1st Defendant's counterclaim struck out.
Orders
- Enclosure 9 allowed: summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against 1st Defendant
- Enclosure 13 allowed: summary judgment entered for Plaintiff against 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment