Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14

Legal area

Court

5 Aug 2025

OCEAN GLORY SEAFOOD SDN. BHD. GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22NCC-248-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-248-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant failed to discharge the burden to show a triable issue because its denials and allegation of software migration error were contradicted by contemporaneous documents (PO, GRN, invoice, and repeated statements of account) issued by defendant; accordingly summary judgment was allowed for RM 891,879.60 with interest and costs while other claims proceed to trial.
16 Apr 2025

MANOGARAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN MUNIANDY A/L PARASURAMAN

Citation

AH-A72NCC-110-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

AH-A72NCC-110-07/2024 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Order 14; defendant failed to raise any bona fide triable issues because the affidavit and pleadings contained only bare denials and afterthoughts and did not provide evidence of a defence; therefore summary judgment was proper and judgment entered for the unpaid sum with costs.
10 Mar 2025

AFFIN BANK BERHAD 1. ) PCS VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN

Citation

WA-22NCC-222-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-222-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff produced valid certificates of indebtedness under the facilities agreement and the defendants failed to present detailed, specific, and contemporaneously supported facts in their affidavit to establish triable issues; bare allegations and general denials were insufficient to defeat an Order 14 application.
22 Apr 2024

PEN EXPRESS WORLDWIDE (M) SDN BHD ASIA GLOBAL TOTAL LOGISTICS SDN BHD

Citation

PA-12ANCC-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-12ANCC-5-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Documentary evidence and email correspondence established that the claimant provided services to and invoiced the defendant, the particulars in the statement of claim matched the exhibited invoices, and the defendant produced only bare, unparticularised denials which did not disclose a fairly arguable defence or a bona fide triable issue; accordingly the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Sessions Court's summary judgment under Order 14.
30 Jan 2024

NORMI BINTI ABU BAKAR RASHIDI BIN ANI

Citation

KA-A72NCvC-135-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

KA-A72NCvC-135-07/2023 (Mahkamah Majistret)

Plaintiff complied with Order 14 requirements and established a prima facie case; defendant failed to file a defence and did not demonstrate bona fide triable issues in the affidavit answer (mere denials and unmeritorious assertions), therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff and costs awarded.
20 Jul 2023

Tetuan Bahari & Bahari (Menuntut sebagai sebuah firma) Chu Boon Tiong

Citation

BB-A52NCvC-17-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52NCvC-17-01/2023 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court held that the plaintiff's affidavit evidence and exhibits established delivery and maturity of the invoices and the absence of any bona fide defence or triable issue; the burden shifted to the defendant who failed to raise a proper issue or take statutory taxation steps, therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate.
24 Feb 2023

QUICKASH MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ) HONG HOE LIAN (Berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya CORAL LOTUS HOUSE ENTERPRISE) 2. ) BALOY SDN BHD 3. ) MOK CHEE CHUNG 4. ) CHENG KIM LOONG 5. ) CHENG CHOI WAI

Citation

NA-A52NCC-58-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

NA-A52NCC-58-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

The court found the three preconditions of Order 14 were met (service, appearance, compliant supporting affidavit), plaintiff had established a prima facie case and the defendants failed to show a bona fide defence or triable issue; accordingly the Order 14 application was allowed and summary judgment entered for the plaintiff.
10 Feb 2022

AZIO E-PAY SERVICE MALAYSIA SDN BHD 1. ) SHAHRUL BIN MOHAMED 2. ) MOHAMED BIN ABDULLAH

Citation

TA-A72NCC-99-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Court

Magistrates' Court
Case number

TA-A72NCC-99-10/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)

The court granted summary judgment because the plaintiff's documentary evidence established entitlement to the debt, the defendants' pleadings amounted to bare denials and unpleaded allegations of fraud that did not raise triable issues, and the RM100 payment on 19.2.2018 constituted an acknowledgment reviving the limitation period.
15 Mar 2021

E&C PRO SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 1187683 – A) ECO WORKS ENGINEERING SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT : 1226171 – U)

Citation

BA-12ANCC-68-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-12ANCC-68-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff met preliminary Order 14 requirements; defendant failed to produce contemporaneous documentary evidence or precise timely complaints to establish a bona fide triable issue; defendant's late disputes and part payments gave rise to estoppel/non-query and its email amounted to an admission; counterclaim lacked supportive contemporaneous evidence — thus summary judgment for RM607,214.60 was properly entered and was affirmed on appeal.
30 Dec 2020

PERUSAHAAN OTOMOBIL KEDUA SDN. BHD. LEE LAP KEE

Citation

WA-22IP-10-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-10-01/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although plaintiffs met the preliminary requirements for an Order 14 application, the defendant's affidavit raised inherently probable disputes and denials sufficient to constitute bona fide triable issues under established Supreme Court authority; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the application was dismissed.