Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate guarantee

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2025

ADY MARKETING SDN. BHD. 1. ) EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. 2. ) EURO HOLDINGS BERHAD PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) ADY MARKETING SDN BHD 2. ) Choong Yuen Keong @ Tong Yuen Keong 3. ) Tong Yun Mong 4. ) ALL WAYS BUILDERS SDN BHD 5. ) M SOUTH MARKETIN

Citation

WA-22NCC-246-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-246-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved delivery, acceptance and quantum via contemporaneous documents and credible oral evidence; the corporate guarantees were valid, authorized and their conditions (delivery to site, use for project, signed and stamped delivery orders) were substantially satisfied; Euroland’s consent judgment admitting liability materially undermined Euro Holdings’ conspiracy counterclaim; Euro Holdings failed to prove agreement, intent and causation for conspiracy so the counterclaim is dismissed and Euro Holdings is liable under the guarantees up to the state…
4 Jun 2025

ADY MARKETING SDN. BHD. 1. ) ALL WAYS BUILDER SDN. BHD. 2. ) EURO HOLDINGS BERHAD 3. ) WONG KIN SING 4. ) CHIA CHIW HOON PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) CHOONG YUEN KEONG @ TONG YUEN KEONG 2. ) TONG YUN MONG 3. ) M SOUTH MARKETING SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-22NCC-632-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-632-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found ADY proved supply of goods and services with contemporaneous documentary and testimonial evidence; the corporate guarantees dated 8.8.2017 and 1.11.2018 were valid and enforceable and Euro Holdings was liable under them up to the stated limits because the essential conditions precedent (delivery to site, use for project, signed/stamped delivery orders) were satisfied in substance; Euroland's consent judgment substantially undermined Euro Holdings' conspiracy counterclaim and Euro Holdings failed to prove the elements of conspiracy, which was dis…
29 Apr 2025

Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd 1. ) Pestech Energy Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pestech International Berhad

Citation

BA-22NCC-152-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-152-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the documentary record and contemporaneous communications established debt and admissions by Defendants; Defendants failed to adduce affidavit evidence raising bona fide triable issues under Order 14; corporate guarantees were held applicable; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate in favour of Plaintiff against Defendant 1 and the corporate guarantees apply against Defendant 2.
13 Dec 2024

MCC OVERSEAS (M) SDN BHD DAMAI CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-522-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-522-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed summary judgment because the defendant failed to establish any triable issue: the RM71,400,000 debt was admitted in related proceedings, the fraud allegations were unparticularised and inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and conduct (including absence of a police report and failure to raise the issue in other post‑discovery proceedings), and prior interlocutory rulings supported the plaintiff; therefore plaintiff entitled to judgment for RM71,400,000 plus interest and costs.
15 Nov 2024

NEGERI SEMBILAN CEMENT INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) TRU-MIX CONCRETE SDN BHD 2. ) HO HUP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-239-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-239-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the Plaintiff proved the debt on the basis of the Contract's conclusive evidence clause, unchallenged Statements of Account, admissions in e-mail communications and estoppel by account stated; the Defendants failed to particularise bona fide triable issues under oath; accordingly there were no triable issues and summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff against both Defendants, who are jointly and severally liable under the Guarantee.
30 Jul 2024

MALAYSIAN TRUSTEES BERHAD 1. ) DBH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) HOE TZE FOOK

Citation

WA-22NCC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-28-01/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the 2nd Defendant's allegation of signing blank documents unsubstantiated and inherently improbable given contemporaneous execution of other corporate documents referencing him; he failed to discharge the burden of raising a bona fide triable issue. Consequently the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the guaranteed sum and the 2nd Defendant's counterclaim was frivolous and properly struck out.
29 Jul 2024

Grand Dynamic Builders Sdn Bhd KSK Land Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22C-32-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-32-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The AIS and annexed report formed part of scheme of arrangement material prepared by independent advisers and contained disclaimers; they did not constitute a clear, direct and unequivocal admission by the defendant. Material triable issues existed (set-off, pending arbitration, interpretation of PAM clause 25.4(d) and alleged duress) requiring viva voce evidence, therefore summary judgment and judgment on admission were inappropriate and both applications were dismissed with costs.
4 Dec 2023

Rainbow Marble & Tiling Sdn. Bhd. Stone master Corporation Berhad

Citation

WA-28PW-379-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-379-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found the liquidator erred in law by rejecting the two proofs of debt on the basis that the corporate guarantees infringed ss472 and 528 CA 2016 and lacked consideration; the guarantees were supported by consideration and ss472 and 528 were inapplicable, and additional grounds not contained in Form 59 could not be relied upon absent amendment, therefore the liquidator's rejection was reversed with costs.
26 Oct 2023

AUSTIN POWDER ASIA PACIFIC INC. TROPICANA CORPORATION BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-138-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application to amend was dismissed because the plaintiff filed it after more than one year from the events relied on, after extensive trial preparations and three case management conferences, and under the governing robust approach to delay the inordinate delay and resulting prejudice warranted refusal and costs.
15 May 2023

HARTA PACKAGING INDUSTRIES (PERAK) SDN BHD IQZAN HOLDING BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-558-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-558-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case via the corporate guarantee, the consent judgment against the principal debtor, a demand and a certified statement of indebtedness; the defendant's denials were implausible and contradicted by an undisputed directors' resolution and witness evidence, therefore no triable issue existed and summary judgment was rightly granted for the unpaid sum and costs.