Tang Wei Lam Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn Bhd

Tang Wei Lam Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff satisfied the preliminary and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment by producing undisputed accounting records and acknowledgements; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on the facts or law (bankruptcy status and alleged informal agreement/ delay did not displace the obligation to repay). Consequently summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Citation
KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (as Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Sebagai Pentadbir Estet Si Bankrap): Tang Wei Lam; Defendant: Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Case Number
KA-22NCvC-2-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt Action (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 R.1 Allowed; Application for Security for Costs (order 23 R.1 / Lampiran 8) Refused; Reasons Provided for Appeals
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff under Order 14 r.1; application for security for costs (Lampiran 8) refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Bankruptcy, Affidavit Evidence, Triable Issues
Source Language
Malay/English
Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Insolvency Law Summary Judgment Security for Costs Bankruptcy Affidavit Evidence Triable Issues

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tang Wei Lam

Plaintiff (as Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Sebagai Pentadbir Estet Si Bankrap)

Property Builder (Kuala Kedah) Sdn. Bhd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt Action (summary Judgment Application) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 R.1 Allowed; Application for Security for Costs (order 23 R.1 / Lampiran 8) Refused; Reasons Provided for Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 should be granted
  2. 2 Whether defendant raised a triable issue to defeat summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's bankruptcy/status of estate prevents recovery or is a defence to the debt

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff satisfied the preliminary and evidentiary requirements for summary judgment by producing undisputed accounting records and acknowledgements; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issue on the facts or law (bankruptcy status and alleged informal agreement/ delay did not displace the obligation to repay). Consequently summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of plaintiff under Order 14 r.1; application for security for costs (Lampiran 8) refused.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant under Order 14 r.1 (Lampiran 5) for the claim as pleaded
  • Application for security for costs (Lampiran 8) is dismissed/refused