Malaysia Case Law

8 Jul 2025

MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD 1. ) C & L MINERALS SDN. BHD. 2. ) CHOO KHEN LON 3. ) TENG AI LENG

Citation

WA-B52NCC-2720-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Court

Sessions Court

Case number

WA-B52NCC-2720-11/2024 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preconditions and produced a certificate of indebtedness and account statements establishing a prima facie debt; defendants failed to adduce documentary evidence to rebut or raise any bona fide triable issue regarding the amount; defendants' admissions/communications estopped them from disputing the debt; accordingly summary judgment was proper and granted.

• Summary judgment
• Certificate of indebtedness
• Overdraft facility
• Guarantee and indemnity
• Interest claim
• Estoppel

22 Dec 2021

NARIMAH BINTI MAHMOOD MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-12ANCVC-145-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-12ANCVC-145-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The default judgment was regular because the writ was served at the defendant's last known address which the defendant did not dispute, and the defendant's allegation of forgery amounted to a bare denial without supporting evidence; therefore there was no meritorious defence and the appeal failed.

• Default judgment
• Service of process
• Forgery of signature
• Overdraft facility
• Set aside judgment

21 Feb 2020

AmBank (M) Berhad Reliance Shipping & Travel Agencies Sdn Bhd

Citation

WA-22NCC-657-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-657-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed summary judgment because the plaintiff proved the indebtedness by account statements and a certificate of indebtedness which are conclusive in the absence of manifest error; the plaintiff demonstrated proper application of security proceeds; and the contractual notice provisions rendered the demand duly served. The defendants did not raise any triable issue.

• Overdraft facility
• Guarantee and indemnity
• Memorandum of deposit
• Certificate of indebtedness
• Service of demand
• Summary judgment standard

12 Nov 2019

RHB BANK BERHAD (COMPANY NO.: 6171-M) 1. VACATION ASIA (MY) SDN. BHD. (COMPANY NO.: 141295-H) 2. GAN ENG KWONG (NRIC No.: 500624-10-5689) 3. IRENE TAN (NRIC No.: 550209-08-5014)

Citation

WA-22NCC-364-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

WA-22NCC-364-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and established a prima facie case by contemporaneous documents and a Certificate of Indebtedness; Defendants produced only bare assertions without documentary evidence to rebut the debt or raise bona fide triable issues; contractual terms authorized default interest and governed notice; guarantees were validly executed; therefore summary judgment was appropriate.

• Summary judgment under order 14
• Overdraft facility
• Foreign exchange contract
• Personal guarantee
• Notice of demand
• Default interest

29 Oct 2019

RHB BANK BERHAD 1. PYO TRAVEL (MY) SDN BHD 2. RELIANCE SHIPPING & TRAVEL AGENCIES SDN BHD 3. GAN ENG KWONG 4. IRENE TAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-363-07/2019 (Didengar bersama WA-22NCC-365-07/2019) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

Didengar bersama WA-22NCC-365-07/2019

Case number

WA-22NCC-363-07/2019 (Didengar bersama WA-22NCC-365-07/2019) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendants failed to establish bona fide triable issues: plaintiff proved event(s) of default (cessation of business and overdrafts), demands and termination went unchallenged, and certified statements of indebtedness supported by conclusive clause were not shown to be manifestly erroneous; challenges to interest and guarantees were unproven; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate.

• Summary judgment
• Event of default
• Overdraft facility
• Enforcement of guarantees
• Conclusive certificate clause
• Contractual interest and penalty

BANK BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA BHD V. SAL ENTERPRISE SDN BHD & ORS

Citation

BANK BUMIPUTRA MALAYSIA BHD V. SAL ENTERPRISE SDN BHD & ORS

Court

Malaysian court

The Court held the facility was an overdraft governed by express pre-disbursement conditions; those conditions were not met, the bank lawfully limited disbursement and recalled the facility after the borrower failed to service monthly interest; the borrower failed to prove the set-off for projected profits; guarantors who executed the guarantee are liable; accordingly the bank's claim for RM333,947.99 with interest succeeds.

• Overdraft facility
• Bridging loan
• Disbursement conditions
• Breach of contract
• Set-off
• Guarantee liability