QUICKASH MALAYSIA SDN. BHD HAS SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD. & 2 LG

QUICKASH MALAYSIA SDN. BHD HAS SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD. & 2 LG

Summary judgment under Order 14 was refused because the defendants' affidavits and the documentary record disclosed bona fide triable issues regarding the characterisation of the transaction, the authenticity and meaning of key exhibits and the calculation/commencement of default fees; those issues could not be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-B52NCC-516-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: QUICKASH MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.; Defendant: HAS SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD.; Defendant: MOHD HANAFIAH BIN ABDULLAH; Defendant: SHAMSUL BAHRIN BIN ABU
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Case Number
WA-B52NCC-516-10/2020 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Debt Recovery (civil) / Application for Summary Judgment (order 14) Interlocutory
Outcome
Application for summary judgment (Lampiran 11) dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee, Characterisation of Transaction (loan Vs Investment), Default Interest and Fees, Pre Trial Directions
Contract Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Securities/finance Summary Judgment Guarantee Characterisation of Transaction (loan Vs Investment) Default Interest and Fees +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QUICKASH MALAYSIA SDN. BHD.

Plaintiff

HAS SETIAMURNI SDN. BHD.

Defendant

MOHD HANAFIAH BIN ABDULLAH

Defendant

SHAMSUL BAHRIN BIN ABU

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Debt Recovery (civil) / Application for Summary Judgment (order 14) Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Investment Notes constitute a loan/financing or an investment agreement
  2. 2 Whether there is an enforceable debt owed by the defendants and guarantors
  3. 3 Validity and effect of the deed of guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment under Order 14 was refused because the defendants' affidavits and the documentary record disclosed bona fide triable issues regarding the characterisation of the transaction, the authenticity and meaning of key exhibits and the calculation/commencement of default fees; those issues could not be resolved on affidavit alone and required full trial and viva voce evidence.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment (Lampiran 11) dismissed

Orders

  • Lampiran 11 (application for summary judgment) dismissed
  • Costs of RM1,500.00 to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants