Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guarantee and suretyship

Legal area

Court

13 Jan 2026

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN AHMAD AKMAL BIN HAMZAH

Citation

WA-29NCC-1070-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-29NCC-1070-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The consent order constituted a final and enforceable judgment for purposes of issuing a Bankruptcy Notice; the Settlement Agreement and Supplemental Settlement Agreement did not vary or discharge the guarantors because the Guarantee contained express clauses contracting out of ss.87/88/92/94 of the Contracts Act and the JC consistently reserved rights against guarantors; the BN was sufficiently particularised and any minimal excess interest allegedly beyond limitation did not reduce the claim below statutory threshold; and s.5(4) required exhaustion of execution against the principal debtor…
22 May 2025

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD 2. ) LEE SON HONG 3. ) WRP SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SDN BHD (PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS DILANTIK)

Citation

WA-22NCC-219-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-219-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the amended judgment in default is dismissed in limine because the 3rd Defendant filed the application outside the mandatory 30‑day period without applying for abridgment of time or offering a satisfactory explanation, service at the registered address was valid, and the 3rd Defendant failed to demonstrate a prima facie bona fide defence (no draft defence and no substantive averments); receivership/internal disputes do not negate service or relieve liability under the guarantee. Costs RM5,000 awarded to Plaintiff.
5 Feb 2025

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) UMAPAGAN A/L K AMPIKAIPAKAN 2. ) Arubugam A/l Suppiah 3. ) ARUBUGAM A/L SUPPIAH 4. ) SIVAKAMASUNDARI NARAYANI A/P K AMPIKAIPAKAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-598-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-598-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for a stay was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional and compelling special circumstances; the arguments he relied on relate to the merits of his defence and do not justify halting concurrent proceedings, and the Bank lawfully may pursue foreclosure and actions against guarantors simultaneously.
28 Mar 2023

EAST ROCK QUARRY SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHENGALJATI SDN.BHD. 2. ) SHAARI BIN HASSAN 3. ) SURIYANA BINTI JAAFAR@ MAT ZIN 4. ) MOHD ZHAFRAN BIN FAUZI

Citation

CA-A72NCvC-184-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

CA-A72NCvC-184-07/2022 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff produced coherent documentary evidence (invoices, delivery notes, debt statement, guarantee) establishing a prima facie debt; defendants’ contentions were either unexplained, contradicted by documents or amounted to afterthoughts/dilatory tactics; payments relied on by defendants were accounted for by plaintiff and did not extinguish liability; consequently there were no triable issues and summary judgment under Order 14 was justified in favour of the plaintiff.
30 Jul 2021

1. ) TAN PEN FAH & SONS REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) TAN WEI LIAN 3. ) SEK CHIAN NEE OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-16-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-16-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff met Order 14 prerequisites and produced a conclusive certificate of indebtedness; defendants failed to raise any bona fide triable issue (no affidavit evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, manifest error or particulars of forgery; discrepancies were explained by post-notice partial payments); contractual notice provisions were complied with; therefore summary judgment was justified for the reduced, current indebtedness and costs.
13 Apr 2021

THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-476-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-476-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because service of the writ and default judgment was properly effected, the 3rd Defendant’s application was filed 24 months late and he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay; accordingly the court declined to consider the merits of the alleged defence and refused to set aside the judgment; costs of RM3,000 awarded to the Plaintiff.

Malaysia Case Law

PEMIUTANG PENGHAKIMAN RHB INVESTMENT BANK BERHAD PENGHUTANG PENGHAKIMAN AHMAD AKMAL BIN HAMZAH

AMBANK (M) BERHAD 1. ) WRP ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD 2. ) LEE SON HONG 3. ) WRP SPECIALTY PRODUCTS SDN BHD (PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS DILANTIK)

PUBLIC BANK BERHAD 1. ) UMAPAGAN A/L K AMPIKAIPAKAN 2. ) Arubugam A/l Suppiah 3. ) ARUBUGAM A/L SUPPIAH 4. ) SIVAKAMASUNDARI NARAYANI A/P K AMPIKAIPAKAN

EAST ROCK QUARRY SDN. BHD. 1. ) CHENGALJATI SDN.BHD. 2. ) SHAARI BIN HASSAN 3. ) SURIYANA BINTI JAAFAR@ MAT ZIN 4. ) MOHD ZHAFRAN BIN FAUZI

1. ) TAN PEN FAH & SONS REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) TAN WEI LIAN 3. ) SEK CHIAN NEE OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

THANDAYU THAPANI A/L S RASATHURAI MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD