ZAINI BINTI HASSAN (berniaga di bawah nama dan gaya ZAIWI ENTERPRISE (No. Pendaftaran Perniagaan. 199603117872 (PG0018203-W)) v RADICARE(M) SDN BHD (WA-22NCC-202-03/2024)

ZAINI BINTI HASSAN (NRIC No.: 661204-07-5580)

MOHAMMAD ARIF BIN AZIZ (NRIC No.: 920309-03-6549) [Both trade in the same name and style of Zaiwi Enterprise Company No.: 199603117872 (PG0018203-W)] ...PLAINTIFFS AND RADICARE (M) SDN BHD [Company No.: 199401000385 (286063-T)] …DEFENDANT GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 5) S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

This is the Plaintiffs’ application for summary judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. The Plaintiffs seek payment for maintenance and repair services rendered for the Defendant (“the Works”).

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant has no bona fide defence on the merits. They aver that the alleged triable issues raised are contrived, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, and amount to mere afterthoughts.

The Defendant resists the application on the basis that there are multiple triable issues warranting a full trial.

This is, at its core, a straightforward commercial dispute. The Plaintiffs did work. The Defendant accepted the work. The documents were signed. Payments were made—partially. What remains unpaid is now resisted, not because the work was not done, but because defences have surfaced only after the Writ was served.

The Plaintiffs, trading as Zaiwi Enterprise, rendered maintenance and repair works at various government healthcare facilities. These were at the request and for the benefit of the Defendant. S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

The Works are evidenced by quotations, invoices, statements of account, work orders and job sheets. These documents were tendered collectively as exhibits in the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit in Support.

The quotations were signed by the Defendant’s employees and affixed with the Defendant’s company stamp. All job sheets evidencing completion of the Works were likewise signed off by the Defendant’s employees and stamped.

Upon non-payment, the Plaintiffs issued a first Notice of Demand dated 21 August 2023. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiffs furnished a full set of supporting documents (four boxes in total) and granted the Defendant time to review and verify the claim.

Following the review, the Defendant made a partial payment of RM 299,925.00 on 19 December 2023. This amount was significantly short of the sums claimed.

A second Notice of Demand dated 15 January 2024 was then issued, tabulating the amounts claimed. The Defendant made a further payment of RM 3,376,801.00 thereafter.

As at 7 March 2024, the Plaintiffs claim that a sum of RM 7,901,746.00 remains due for the Works, together with contractual interest.

As the Defendant failed to make payments for the balance due, the Plaintiffs filed the present claim and took out an application seeking summary judgment. S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

The law governing summary judgment is trite. Once the Plaintiff satisfies the formal requirements of Order 14, the burden shifts to the Defendant to raise a bona fide triable issue.

The Federal Court in Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying & Anor [2005] 2 MLRA 736 held: “Once those conditions are fulfilled, the burden then shifts to the defendant to raise triable issues. The law on this is trite.”

It is equally settled that a bare denial does not amount to a triable issue. In a case fought on documentary evidence, any alleged defence must also be supported by credible contemporaneous documentary evidence.

In Huo Heng Oil Co (E.M.) Sdn Bhd v Tang Tiew Yong [1984] 2 MLRH 320, the Court emphasised that affidavits must “condescend upon particulars” and that it is insufficient for a defendant merely to assert that nothing is owed.

The Defendant’s alleged triable issues may be summarised as follows: i. Whether the amounts claimed have been proven; S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q ii. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to charge interest; iii. Whether the prices quoted by the Plaintiffs were inflated; iv. Whether there was collusion between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s employees; v. Whether invoices unsupported by purchase orders (“POs”) are valid and payable; and vi. Whether the Defendant’s internal Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) defeats the Plaintiffs’ claim.

The documentary trail in this case is clear and consistent. The Works were requested by the Defendant. The Works were completed by the Plaintiffs. The completion was acknowledged by the Defendant’s employees through signed and stamped job sheets. The Works were even partially paid for by the Defendant.

Until the commencement of these proceedings, the Defendant did not raise a single contemporaneous complaint as to pricing, scope, or completion of the Works.

The Defendant’s subsequent allegations of inflated claims are unsupported by any audit report, internal correspondence, or S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q contemporaneous objection. I find that such allegations are pure afterthoughts and do not amount to a bona fide defence.

I find that where works are proven and no contemporaneous complaints are shown, defences amounting to excuses without supporting contemporaneous documents for non-payment do not raise triable issues.

The Defendant alleges collusion involving its own employees. I find this allegation to be wholly untenable.

The evidence shows that approximately 22 different employees signed off the quotations and job sheets. To suggest collusion on such a scale, without any investigation, disciplinary action, or police report, stretches credulity.

The affidavit filed by the Defendant is devoid of facts showing any or some form of investigation was commenced. Neither does the affidavit allude to any steps being taken against the employees allegedly involved.

A triable issue must be grounded on credible documentary evidence, not bare assertions. Hence, I find that the alleged collusion does not amount to a triable issue that warrants a trial. I hold that on the evidence before me, the employees were duly authorised by the Plaintiff to sign off the quotations and job sheets. I say so because the issue of alleged collusion was brought up only S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q when the Plaintiff commenced this claim in court. Even then, the Plaintiff merely alleges collusion without having taken any form action against the employees concerned.

I must add that Courts are not required to suspend common sense. To allege collusion by some 22 employees, without investigation, complaint, or consequence, is not a defence—it is speculation dressed up as one.

The Defendant relies heavily on the absence of POs and its internal

The Defendant’s SOP requires the Defendant to obtain quotations for the Works to be carried out from at least three vendors registered with the Defendant. The quotations are submitted to the Defendant’s Facilities Manager based on the site of the Defendant’s client hospitals. Any procurement above RM 15,000.00 requires the approval of the Defendant’s head office. There are various other processes involved before payment may be claimed for works completed by a vendor.

To questions from the Court, Learned Counsel for the Defendant confirmed that the SOP is a matter of internal convention.

Even assuming such an SOP exists, it is plainly an internal management mechanism of the Defendant. It was neither communicated to the Plaintiffs nor agreed to by them. S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

An internal SOP cannot be weaponised to defeat payment for works. I took note of the fact that the Works were carried out since 2020 and payments were being sought for these Works for a continuous period of time without any protest from the Defendant.

The invoices, delivery documents and statements of account collectively constitute a binding contract (see: Caltex Oil Malaysia Ltd v Classic Best Sdn Bhd [2006] 5 MLRH 16). The SOP does nothing to detract from the binding contract between the parties. This is more so when there has been prolonged silence and failure on the part of the Defendant to dispute the amounts claimed. Such failure properly gives rise to estoppel against the Defendant in that the Defendant is estopped from disputing the amounts claimed in the invoices (see: Perangsang Dagang Sdn Bhd v Tanjung Teras Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 MLRH 295).

Commercial reality cannot be ignored. A commercial entity is expected to respond promptly to payment claims and articulate disputes clearly and timeously. A party who orders work cannot sit back, say nothing, pay part, and years later deny liability when sued.

In this case, the Defendant remained silent in the face of two Notices of Demand, made partial payments without protest and only raised disputes after being served with the Writ.

I pause to observe that such conduct claws at the very bona fides of the Defence. Delay and inaction, such as that in the present case, S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q supports the inference that the defence is not genuine. Silence, in commerce, speaks loudly.

I am, however, not satisfied that the Plaintiffs have established, at this interlocutory stage, that the contractual interest claimed was mutually agreed and consistently applied.

There is no evidence of prior payments of interest nor clear acceptance of such payments by the Defendant.

I therefore hold that the issue of interest is not suitable for summary determination and ought to be ventilated at trial.

For the reasons above, I find that the Defendant has failed to raise any bona fide triable issue in respect of the principal sum claimed for the Works.

The present case involves straightforward commercial documentation, partial payments, and uncontroverted acceptance of the Works. It is simply a case of unpaid work supported by signed documents. The Defences raised amount to afterthoughts given the prolonged silence of the Defendant in the face of unchallenged contemporaneous documents sent to the Defendant. S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

Courts exist to facilitate commerce, not to stall it. Where work is ordered, accepted, documented, and partly paid for, the law will not permit payment to be withheld on defences raised only when litigation looms.

I therefore granted summary judgment for the principal sum of RM 7,901,746.00, together with judgment interest at 5% per annum from the date of filing of the Writ until full settlement. The Plaintiffs were also awarded costs. Dated the 30th day of January 2026 -sgd- ……………………………………………………………………… MUHAMMAD ADAM @ EDWARD BIN ABDULLAH Judicial Commissioner (Commercial Division NCC 4) High Court of Malaya In the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Counsel for the Plaintiffs : Khoo Boon Yen Messrs. The Chambers of B.Y. Khoo Counsel for the Defendant : Aisha Binti Abdul Mubarak together with Annesha Mary Koshi Messrs. Aisha Mubarak & Co. S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q

Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying & Anor [2005] 2 MLRA 736 2. Huo Heng Oil Co (E.M.) Sdn Bhd v Tang Tiew Yong [1984] 2 MLRH 320 3. Caltex Oil Malaysia Ltd v Classic Best Sdn Bhd [2006] 5 MLRH 16 4. Perangsang Dagang Sdn Bhd v Tanjung Teras Sdn Bhd [2007] 3 MLRH 295

Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 S/N 0gXv1yXRk0OthV3pzPra4Q