Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Facility agreement

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2025

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD 1. ) MOHD RAZLAN BIN MOHAMED YUSOF (berniaga atas nama dan gaya sebagai SOLO BORNEO MART)(201903266743)(003022948-H) 2. ) NUR SHEILA BINTI HASSIM

Citation

WA-B52M-1684-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

WA-B52M-1684-09/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Service by ordinary post was valid and effective in accordance with the contractual service provisions and Order 10 r.3; the default judgment was therefore regular and Defendant Second failed to demonstrate a prima facie meritorious defence; accordingly the application to set aside the default judgment is dismissed with costs.
28 Jun 2024

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. ) Q DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) LOW MOI ING 3. ) PHOA BOON TING 4. ) CHAN JUI HIN

Citation

WA-22NCC-810-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-810-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was granted because the plaintiff proved that condition precedents were fulfilled (charges registered) before disbursement, the defendants admitted indebtedness and made part payments, the Facility Agreement permits the lender to waive conditions and to vary terms (binding the borrower), the certificate of indebtedness is conclusive, and the defendants failed to raise bona fide triable issues to defeat summary judgment.
25 Jun 2024

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) BG BETA SDN BHD 2. ) BRUNSFIELD CORPORATION SDN BHD 3. ) GAN THIAN LEONG

Citation

WA-22NCC-560-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-560-08/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case supported by facility documents, executed guarantees and sworn statements of indebtedness; defendants failed to produce credible, contemporaneous evidence to raise a triable issue (their allegations were bare, inconsistent or inherently improbable); accordingly summary judgment is appropriate (except where prevented by pending judicial management).
29 Aug 2023

EVERFINE RESOURCES SDN BHD MALAYSIA BUILDING SOCIETY BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-127-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-127-06/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant did not breach the Facility Agreement: the Plaintiff failed to satisfy conditions precedent and delayed provision of the FELDA EOT until after the Facility expiry, and the Agreement vested the Defendant with discretion to refuse disbursement or to terminate; the termination referenced prior reminders and thus was not without reason.
26 Jan 2023

AMANAH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE SDN BHD 1. ) TAN SRI HALIM BIN SAAD 2. ) Abu Talib Bin Abdul Rahman

Citation

WA-22M-465-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-465-09/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd tranche disbursement and the Efogen SPA were legally valid and Shariah‑compliant; the Shariah issues raised were not novel and did not require mandatory referral to the SAC; AIF proved TSH's breach of the Facility; HP was liable under the Assignment as principal debtor; Ta'widh is payable subject to SAC‑prescribed calculation.
8 Feb 2022

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) LIM KOK WEI 2. ) LIM KOK HONG 3. ) LIM KOK SENG

Citation

WA-22NCC-309-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-309-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue; the winding up of the borrower triggered an Event of Default under the Facilities Agreement making the debt immediately due and guarantors immediately liable, and clause 13.4 allowed the bank to pursue remedies (including enforcement of the guarantee) without first realising the charged Properties; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.
10 Sept 2021

MODALKU VENTURES SDN BHD 1. ) KWANG SHEN STEEL INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) MD HANIF BIN OTHMAN 3. ) CHAN, HSUN-WEI 4. ) MOU, YU-HUI 5. ) TMT INDUSTRY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-184-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-184-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by producing the Security Documents, a solicitor's demand and a certificate of indebtedness which, under the Facility Agreement, conclusively proved indebtedness of RM4,259,557.93; the defendants' responses were bare denials and not credible triable issues, and the 2nd to 5th defendants were bound as guarantors under clause 18 and by the amendments, therefore summary judgment was granted.
6 Sept 2021

FOONG WAI FONG (No. K/P: 650216-07-5496) 1. ) ASAKARIKEN (M) SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 343357-M) 2. ) ONAMI YASUHIRO (No. Paspot: TK6644435) 3. ) MORITO RYUJI (No. Paspot: TK7060628) 4. ) TEOH CHIN HEONG (No. K/P: 810626-07-5173) 5. ) ASAKA

Citation

PA-22NCVC-92-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCVC-92-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to show bona fide serious issues to be tried: proceeds of sale were not the subject matter of the main suit and plaintiff did not claim proprietary interest in the property; debenture was validly registered and disposal procedures observed, so preservation order was not justified.
19 Aug 2020

ITRAMAS TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. MAJU HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. MAJU SOLAR (GURUN) SDN BHD 3. BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD 4. CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-245-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-245-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on the evidence and failed to show solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation of the RM2,000,000 fixed deposit; although the asset is within jurisdiction, the plaintiff did not prove entitlement to interlocutory Mareva relief and did not discharge duty of full and frank disclosure; Mareva injunction refused and costs awarded to defendants.
5 Jun 2020

AMBANK (M) BERHAD GETS GLOBAL BERHAD

Citation

22NCC-432-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

22NCC-432-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff met the O.14 preliminary requirements and established a prima facie case; the defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue that would require a trial, the facility agreement lawfully permitted concurrent remedies and the demand was validly served under its notice clause, and the Certificate of Indebtedness stood as prima facie proof unrefuted by evidence of miscalculation; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the plaintiff.