Balmung Medical Handel Gmbh v Smart Glove International Pte. Ltd. (BA-22NCC-229-11/2024)

BALMUNG MEDICAL HANDEL GMBH

SANICURE B.V. (COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 34230259) … PLAINTIFFS

SMART GLOVE INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD.

SMART GLOVE CORPORATION SDN BHD (COMPANY REGISTRATION NO.: 199601031218 (403570-D) … DEFENDANTS

This is the Plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) against the 1st Defendant.

The application is confined to a claim for USD 833,000.00. The Plaintiffs contend that the 1st Defendant received payment for goods but failed to deliver goods corresponding to this amount, and therefore has no entitlement to retain the money.

The 1st Defendant opposes the application and contends that there are triable issues which require the matter to proceed to trial.

Having considered the affidavits filed and the submissions of parties, I allowed the Plaintiffs’ application with cost. These are my grounds.

The 1st Plaintiff, Balmung Medical Handel GMBH, and the 2nd Plaintiff, Sanicure B.V., are companies involved in the purchase and distribution of medical gloves. The 1st Defendant, Smart Glove International Pte Ltd, and the 2nd Defendant, Smart Glove Corporation Sdn. Bhd., are companies involved in the manufacture and supply of gloves.

The dispute arises from a series of commercial transactions between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant for the supply of medical gloves. According to the Plaintiffs, the 2nd Plaintiff made payments to the 1st Defendant amounting to USD 2,439,772.00 for the purchase of gloves.

It is not disputed that the 1st Defendant delivered goods valued at USD 1,547,272.00. Based on this, the Plaintiffs contend that there was an excess payment of USD 892,500.00 for which no corresponding goods were delivered.

The Plaintiffs state that in February 2023 the parties discussed the treatment of the excess payment. According to the Plaintiffs, it was agreed that the excess payment would be applied towards new purchase orders. Subsequently, on 14 June 2023, the 1st Plaintiff issued two purchase orders, namely purchase order BEL2301288 and purchase order BEL2301289. Each purchase order was valued at USD 59,500.00.

The Plaintiffs state that purchase order BEL2301288 failed the pre-shipment inspection and was subsequently terminated. The Plaintiffs do not seek to recover this amount in the present application.

The Plaintiffs further state that purchase order BEL2301289 was never delivered and that the 1st Defendant did not provide any update regarding production, inspection, or shipment in relation to that order.

On this basis, the Plaintiffs confine the present application to the sum of USD 833,000.00, which represents the balance of the excess payment after deducting USD 59,500.00.

The 1st Defendant does not dispute that the payments referred to above were received. However, the 1st Defendant disputes that the Plaintiffs are entitled to immediate repayment of the sum claimed. The 1st Defendant’s position is that the excess payment formed part of the parties’ ongoing commercial arrangements and was intended to be utilised for future orders. The 1st Defendant further contends that there is no contractual term providing for the refund of such payments.

The present application therefore concerns whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum of USD 833,000.00 through summary judgment under Order 14 of the ROC, or whether the matters raised by the 1st Defendant disclose triable issues which require the dispute to proceed to trial.

The law on summary judgment is settled. The summary procedure under Order 14 of the ROC is intended to enable a Plaintiff to obtain judgment without a full trial where the Defendant has no defence to the claim.

However, recourse to the summary process should only be made in plain and obvious cases. The Court must be satisfied that the case is clear and ought not to proceed to trial. In Esso Standard Malaysia v Southern Cross Airways (M) Bhd [1972] CLJU 31 and National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ Rep 283, the Courts emphasised that the summary jurisdiction should only be exercised where the case is plainly one that does not require a trial.

At the same time, a Defendant should not be shut out from defending the action unless it is clear that the Defendant has no case. The Defendant is not required to demonstrate a complete defence. It is sufficient if the Defendant shows that there is a triable issue which ought to be determined at trial. This principle was recognised in Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd [1986] CLJ Rep 45 and Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ 627.

Nevertheless, the mere assertion of an issue does not automatically mean that the issue is triable. In Voo Min En & Ors v Leong Chung Fatt [1982] CLJU 47, the Federal Court explained that it is not sufficient for a Defendant merely to raise an issue or any issue. The issue raised must be one that genuinely requires a trial for its determination.

Accordingly, the Court must examine the defence put forward and determine whether it raises a real dispute of fact or law which necessitates a trial. Failure of which, the court is entitled to enter summary judgment.

In support of the Plaintiffs’ application, they contend that the 1st Defendant ought to return the sum of USD833,000.00 being part of the excess payment of USD892,500.00 which the 1st Defendant received but for which no goods were delivered. The Plaintiffs submit that the 1st Defendant has no basis to retain the said sum.

The 1st Defendant, however, contends that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the sum. The 1st Defendant advances several grounds. First, the 1st Defendant says that the excess payment was never intended to be refunded to the Plaintiffs. Second, the 1st Defendant submits that the Plaintiffs were only entitled to utilise the excess payment to place bookings or orders for other goods. Third, the 1st Defendant contends that there is no specific contractual term which entitles the Plaintiffs to recover the excess payment.

Before considering the specific arguments raised by the parties, the Court must determine whether the matters relied on by the 1st Defendant disclose any genuine triable issue within the meaning of Order 14. The burden is on the 1st Defendant to show that the defence raised is one which genuinely requires a trial for its determination and is not merely a bare assertion or denial.

With this in mind, I now consider the issues raised by the parties.

The Plaintiffs submit that the 1st Defendant received payment exceeding the value of goods delivered and has retained the balance despite not supplying goods corresponding to that amount. The Plaintiffs therefore contend that the 1st Defendant has no legal basis to retain the sum of USD833,000.00 claimed in this application.

The 1st Defendant does not dispute that the excess payment was received. However, the 1st Defendant does not produce evidence showing that goods were manufactured, inspected, or delivered in respect of the sum of USD833,000.00.

The Plaintiffs further submit that where money is paid on a basis which has failed, the law requires the benefit received to be restored. In this regard, the Plaintiffs rely on section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 which provides that when an agreement becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under the agreement must restore it or make compensation for it.

The Plaintiffs also rely on the decision in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 where the House of Lords recognised that money paid on a basis which wholly fails is recoverable.

In the present case, the 1st Defendant does not dispute receipt of the excess payment and does not show that goods corresponding to the amount claimed were supplied. In these circumstances, I agree with the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant has not shown any contractual or legal basis entitling it to retain the sum.

The 1st Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs’ claim in the action is pleaded against both Defendants and that it is inconsistent for the Plaintiffs to seek summary judgment against the 1st Defendant alone.

In my view, this argument does not raise a triable issue. The Plaintiffs are entitled to pursue their claim against any party whom they allege to be liable. The election to proceed against the 1st Defendant alone does not prevent the Court from determining the present application.

In this regard, the Plaintiffs rely on Wong Mun Chong v AmFinance Berhad [2008] MLJU 10 where the court recognised that where liability is joint and several, a creditor may elect to proceed against any one of the parties liable.

Furthermore, the 1st Defendant has not shown how the presence of the 2nd Defendant affects its liability in respect of the payment received. The issue raised therefore does not disclose a defence to the Plaintiffs’ claim and does not warrant the matter proceeding to trial. Whether a Trial is Necessary

The central question in this application is whether the matters raised by the 1st Defendant disclose any genuine triable issue requiring the matter to proceed to trial.

As stated by the court in Rock Records (M) Sdn Bhd v Audio One Entertainment Sdn Bhd [2005] 3 MLJ 552, once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie entitlement to judgment, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that there is a genuine triable issue.

Similarly, in Chen Heng Ping & Ors v Intradagang Merchant Bankers (M) Bhd [1995] 2 MLJ 363, the Court of Appeal held that bare denials or assertions in a pleading do not constitute evidence capable of resisting summary judgment.

Having considered the affidavits filed and the submissions of parties, I find that the essential facts relating to the receipt of the payment and the non-delivery of goods in respect of the sum claimed are not disputed.

The 1st Defendant has not shown any contractual or legal basis entitling it to retain the sum of USD833,000.00. In the circumstances, I find that the grounds raised by the 1st Defendant do not disclose any genuine triable issue which warrants the matter proceeding to trial.

In the circumstances, this is a plain and obvious case suitable for determination under the summary procedure provided under Order 14 of the ROC.

Accordingly, I allowed the Plaintiffs’ application and entered summary judgment against the 1st Defendant for the sum of USD833,000.00 together with interest. I also ordered costs of RM5,000 subject to the allocator. Dated this: 12th March 2026 ~signed~ (NOOR HAYATI BINTI HAJI MAT) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR Representative: For the Plaintiff : Timothy Siaw together with Hon Yee Neng Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. For the Defendant : Jecristirei Siose together with Anis Dayana Messrs Jec Siose & Co.