HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 1. ) LEADMONT PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEADMONT DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 1. ) LEADMONT PROPERTIES SDN. BHD. 2. ) LEADMONT DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Defendants failed to raise bona fide triable issues: the Statement of Claim and letters of demand provided sufficient particulars; the Agreements expressly authorised the bank to review and vary the Facilities; the Certificate/Statement of Indebtedness is conclusive; defects in exhibits were not prejudicial and were remedied; omission of an express 'no defence' averment was a curable technical irregularity. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and Enclosure 7 is allowed with costs.

Citation
WA-22NCC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hong Leong Bank Berhad; 1st Defendant: Leadmont Properties Sdn. Bhd.; 2nd Defendant: Leadmont Development Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCC-52-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt / Banking Suit / Summary Judgment Application (enclosure 7 Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012)
Outcome
Enclosure 7 allowed; summary judgment entered against the Defendants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Certificate of Indebtedness, Contractual Review Rights, Guarantee Liability, Particulars of Claim, Default Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Banking Contract Civil Procedure Property Guarantee/indemnity Summary Judgment Certificate of Indebtedness Contractual Review Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hong Leong Bank Berhad

Plaintiff

Leadmont Properties Sdn. Bhd.

1st Defendant

Leadmont Development Sdn. Bhd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt / Banking Suit / Summary Judgment Application (enclosure 7 Under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim contains sufficient particulars to support summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the bank validly reviewed and varied the Facilities and interest rates under the Agreements
  3. 3 Whether the certificate/statement of indebtedness is conclusive evidence of the debt

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to raise bona fide triable issues: the Statement of Claim and letters of demand provided sufficient particulars; the Agreements expressly authorised the bank to review and vary the Facilities; the Certificate/Statement of Indebtedness is conclusive; defects in exhibits were not prejudicial and were remedied; omission of an express 'no defence' averment was a curable technical irregularity. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate and Enclosure 7 is allowed with costs.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 7 allowed; summary judgment entered against the Defendants

Orders

  • Enclosure 7 (application for summary judgment) allowed
  • Summary judgment entered against the Defendants