MFT RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 195361-X) ENERGISER TRADING SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199401032517 (318199-T))

MFT RESOURCES SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 195361-X) ENERGISER TRADING SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 199401032517 (318199-T))

Plaintiff met Order 14 preliminary requirements and proved delivery and outstanding debt by contemporaneous documentary evidence; Defendant's bare general denial lacked particulars and did not establish a triable defence; Section 7 Act 829 did not apply because delivery and the contractual obligations were performed/completed before Act 829 came into force and the alleged default was not caused by measures under Act 342; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and granted with costs.

Citation
AA-A72NCVC-367-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintif: MFT RESOURCES SDN BHD; Defendan: ENERGISER TRADING SDN BHD
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
8 April 2021
Case Number
AA-A72NCVC-367-11/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Debt/contract (sale of Goods) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 (rule 1 2)
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for summary judgment allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Sale of Goods, Debt Recovery, Temporary Statutory Bar (act 829)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Statutory Emergency Measures (covid 19) Summary Judgment Sale of Goods Debt Recovery Temporary Statutory Bar (act 829)

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MFT RESOURCES SDN BHD

Plaintif

ENERGISER TRADING SDN BHD

Defendan

Procedural Posture

Debt/contract (sale of Goods) / Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 (rule 1 2)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff satisfied preliminary requirements for Order 14 summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether Defendant raised a triable defence or bona fide issue
  3. 3 Whether Section 7 of Temporary Measures Act 2020 (Act 829) barred the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff met Order 14 preliminary requirements and proved delivery and outstanding debt by contemporaneous documentary evidence; Defendant's bare general denial lacked particulars and did not establish a triable defence; Section 7 Act 829 did not apply because delivery and the contractual obligations were performed/completed before Act 829 came into force and the alleged default was not caused by measures under Act 342; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and granted with costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for summary judgment allowed with costs

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for RM73,669.70 with interest at 5% per annum from 28 February 2020 until full settlement and costs