Ambank (M) Berhad v Chan Yan Meng (WA-22NCC-775-11/2025)

This is the Plaintiff’s application in Enclosure 8 for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

The Plaintiff, AmBank (M) Berhad, claims against the Defendant, Chan Yan Meng, the sum of RM1,042,248.86 as at 30.9.2025, together with interest and costs. The claim arises from a Share Margin Trading Account Facility granted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Having considered the affidavits, the documentary evidence and the submissions of parties, I allowed Enclosure 8. These are my grounds. Background Facts 4. By a Letter of Offer dated 10.1.2018, the Plaintiff granted the Defendant a Share Margin Trading Account Facility with a facility limit of RM2,800,000.00. The facility required the Defendant to maintain the prescribed maintenance margin of 60%.

The Defendant subsequently breached the maintenance margin requirement. The Plaintiff issued margin calls. The Defendant failed to regularise the account. The Plaintiff then exercised its contractual right to force-sell the pledged securities.

After the force-sale, a shortfall remained due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

On 7.7.2025, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff seeking a revised repayment schedule for the outstanding sum, then stated to be approximately RM1.03 million.

Following that request, the Plaintiff issued a Settlement Agreement dated 7.8.2025. The Defendant signed and accepted the Settlement Agreement. Under that agreement, the outstanding sum was restructured into an instalment payment arrangement.

The Defendant later defaulted on the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff then issued a Letter of Demand dated 17.10.2025, demanding payment of RM1,042,248.86 as at 30.9.2025. The amount was supported by a Certificate of Indebtedness.

The Applicable Principles The principles governing summary judgment are well settled. The Plaintiff must first satisfy the procedural requirements under Order 14 and show a prima facie case for judgment. Once that threshold is crossed, the evidential burden shifts to the Defendant to show that there is a bona fide triable issue or some other reason why the matter ought to proceed to trial.

The Plaintiff relies on the Federal Court decision in National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 283. That case is relied upon for the burden-shifting mechanism in an Order 14 application. It establishes that once the plaintiff has shown a prima facie entitlement to judgment, the defendant must go beyond bare denial and must show facts giving rise to a real triable issue.

Applying National Company for Foreign Trade, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has crossed the threshold. The Plaintiff produced the facility documents, evidence of default, the Defendant’s own request for repayment restructuring, the executed Settlement Agreement, the Letter of Demand and the Certificate of Indebtedness. The burden therefore shifted to the Defendant to show a bona fide triable issue.

The Plaintiff also relies on Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14. That authority is relied upon for the proposition that, in a summary judgment application, the Court is not required to accept every assertion made by a defendant at face value. The Court must examine whether the alleged defence is precise, credible and consistent with the contemporaneous documents.

I apply Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors in this way. The Defendant’s denial must be tested against his own conduct after the force-sale. The Defendant had requested a revised repayment schedule and had signed the Settlement Agreement. His present denial is therefore not viewed in isolation. It must be assessed against these contemporaneous documents.

The Plaintiff further relies on Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying [2006] 3 CLJ 544. That case is relied upon for the principle that a Certificate of Indebtedness, where contractually agreed to be conclusive, is binding unless the debtor can show manifest error, fraud or some other legally sufficient basis to impeach it.

Applying Cempaka Finance, the Certificate of Indebtedness in this case supports the Plaintiff’s claimed sum of RM1,042,248.86 as at 30.9.2025. The Defendant has not identified any manifest error, fraud, wrong entry, omitted credit, or alternative computation. A general complaint that the account is insufficiently particularised is not enough.

The Plaintiff also relies on RHB Bank Bhd v Tan Swee Long Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 10 CLJ 519. That authority is relied upon to show that a bare denial of indebtedness does not amount to a triable issue. A defendant must provide salient facts, specific particulars, or a credible alternative computation to negative the plaintiff’s claim.

Applying RHB Bank, the Defendant’s opposition remains at the level of general denial. He does not say which securities were wrongly sold, what price was wrong, which credit was omitted, or how the Plaintiff’s final figure should be recalculated. This is insufficient to resist summary judgment.

The Defendant’s Case and Authorities The Defendant resists summary judgment mainly on the ground that the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is defective and that the claim is unsupported by detailed accounts.

The Defendant relies on Renofac Builder (M) Sdn Bhd v Chase Perdana Bhd [2010] MLJU 752. This case is relied upon by the Defendant for the principle that material facts must be pleaded in the Statement of Claim and that a plaintiff cannot cure a fundamentally defective pleading by introducing material facts only in affidavit evidence at the summary judgment stage.

The Defendant says that, applying Renofac Builder, the Plaintiff ought to have pleaded the precise mechanics of the force-sale, including the identity of the securities sold, the dates of sale, the sale prices, and how the proceeds were credited.

I accept the general proposition in Renofac Builder that a plaintiff must plead material facts and that affidavit evidence cannot be used to repair a fundamentally defective cause of action. However, that principle does not assist the Defendant on the facts of this case. The Plaintiff’s claim is not based merely on an unexplained force-sale. It is also based on the Defendant’s subsequent request for restructuring and the executed Settlement Agreement dated 7.8.2025.

The Defendant also relies on Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Salleh bin Hj Mohd Nor [1988] 2 MLJ 333. This case is relied upon by the Defendant to contend that a bank claiming a debt should provide sufficient account details and should not rely merely on a final figure without explaining the transactions and calculations leading to that figure.

I accept that Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Salleh bin Hj Mohd Nor may be relevant where the debtor genuinely disputes the account and the plaintiff’s claim depends solely on an unsupported final figure. However, the present case is materially different. Here, the Defendant had already accepted the restructured debt after the force-sale. The Certificate of Indebtedness is also supported by the Settlement Agreement and the Defendant’s own prior conduct.

The Defendant further relies on Maybank Investment Bank Bhd v Alan Rajendram [2018] MLJU 1683. This authority is relied upon because it concerns a share margin facility. The Defendant submits that margin facility disputes may involve complex issues such as margin calls, forced liquidation of pledged securities, account adjustments and interest computations. On that basis, the Defendant says the present matter is unsuitable for summary judgment.

I accept that Alan Rajendram is relevant in showing that share margin facility claims may, in a proper case, raise triable issues where the mechanics of margin calls, force-selling and account reconciliation are genuinely disputed. However, that authority does not create a blanket rule that all margin facility claims must proceed to trial.

The material distinction is that, in the present case, the Defendant’s liability did not remain at the pre-settlement dispute stage. After the force-sale had occurred and the shortfall had crystallised, the Defendant requested a repayment arrangement and executed the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the Court is not being asked to summarily determine a disputed and unexplained margin account from scratch. The Court is dealing with a crystallised debt which the Defendant subsequently acknowledged and agreed to repay.

The Plaintiff’s Case and Authorities The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendant’s objections are afterthoughts and bare denials. The Plaintiff says that the Defendant accepted the indebtedness by signing the Settlement Agreement and later defaulted on that agreement.

The Plaintiff relies on Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying [2006] 3 CLJ 544 to support the legal effect of the Certificate of Indebtedness. The relevance of this authority is that, where the parties have agreed that the bank’s certificate shall be conclusive evidence of the amount due, the Court may act on it unless the debtor demonstrates manifest error or fraud.

In this case, the Defendant has not shown manifest error or fraud. He has not produced any alternative computation. He has not identified any specific entry that is wrong. Therefore, applying Cempaka Finance, the Certificate of Indebtedness supports the Plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff also relies on Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14. The Plaintiff relies on this case to submit that the Court has a duty to scrutinise the Defendant’s alleged defence and reject assertions which are vague, equivocal or inconsistent with undisputed documents.

I agree with the Plaintiff’s reliance on that authority. The Defendant’s present challenge is inconsistent with his earlier request for a repayment schedule and his acceptance of the Settlement Agreement. The Defendant’s denial lacks precision and is not supported by documentary evidence.

The Plaintiff further relies on RHB Bank Bhd v Tan Swee Long Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 10 CLJ 519. This case is relied upon for the proposition that a defendant who denies a debt must do more than simply allege that the plaintiff’s calculation is wrong. The defendant must provide particulars, salient facts or an alternative computation.

Applying RHB Bank, I find that the Defendant has not provided the necessary factual foundation to resist summary judgment. His denial is general. It does not show a real dispute on liability or quantum.

Court’s Evaluation and Findings Having considered the affidavits, submissions and authorities, I find that the Defendant has failed to raise a bona fide triable issue.

I accept that the Defendant’s authorities state important principles. Renofac Builder reminds the Court that material facts must be pleaded. Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Salleh bin Hj Mohd Nor cautions against entering judgment on an unexplained banking figure where the account is genuinely disputed. Alan Rajendram shows that share margin facility claims may involve factual complexity.

However, those authorities must be applied to the facts before the Court. They do not compel the Court to refuse summary judgment where the Defendant’s own post-default conduct amounts to an acknowledgment of the crystallised indebtedness.

In the present case, the decisive fact is the Settlement Agreement dated 7.8.2025.

The Settlement Agreement was executed after the force-sale. It was executed after the shortfall had crystallised. It was also preceded by the Defendant’s own letter dated 7.7.2025 requesting a revised repayment schedule.

The Defendant was therefore not merely participating in preliminary negotiations. He accepted a structured repayment arrangement for the outstanding debt.

In my judgment, the Settlement Agreement changes the complexion of the case. It reduces the significance of the Defendant’s present complaints about the earlier force-sale mechanics. Those complaints may have carried more weight if the Defendant had consistently disputed the account from the beginning. He did not.

The Defendant’s present position is inconsistent with his contemporaneous conduct. A debtor who asks for time to pay and signs a settlement arrangement must produce cogent material before the Court can accept that the debt is genuinely disputed.

No such cogent material has been produced.

The Defendant has not produced an alternative computation. He has not identified any specific error in the Certificate of Indebtedness. He has not shown that any particular share was wrongly sold, sold at the wrong price, or sold at the wrong time. He has not shown that the Plaintiff omitted any credit or wrongly imposed any charge.

The Defendant’s challenge is therefore general and speculative. It does not amount to a bona fide triable issue.

I also reject the Defendant’s suggestion that the Settlement Agreement is protected by “without prejudice” privilege. Whatever may have been the status of earlier negotiations, the executed Settlement Agreement is not merely a negotiation. It is an operative and concluded agreement relied upon to show the Defendant’s acceptance of the restructured indebtedness.

The Defendant cannot use the doctrine of without prejudice privilege as a shield against a concluded agreement which he signed and later breached.

I therefore find that the Defendant’s reliance on Renofac Builder, Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Salleh bin Hj Mohd Nor and Alan Rajendram is misplaced on the facts.

Conversely, the Plaintiff’s reliance on National Company for Foreign Trade, Cempaka Finance, Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors and RHB Bank is directly applicable. These authorities support the conclusion that once the Plaintiff has produced sufficient documentary proof and the Defendant’s own acknowledgment of the restructured debt, the Defendant must show a real defence. Bare denial is insufficient.

In the material before me, the Plaintiff has established a clear prima facie case. The burden shifted to the Defendant. The Defendant failed to discharge that burden.

Conclusion I am satisfied that the Defendant has failed to raise any bona fide triable issue.

The Defendant’s complaints about the force-sale mechanics and the alleged insufficiency of account particulars do not defeat the Plaintiff’s claim in light of the Defendant’s post-force-sale request for restructuring, the executed Settlement Agreement dated 7.8.2025, the subsequent default, the Letter of Demand, and the Certificate of Indebtedness.

The defence raised is not a real defence. It is an afterthought designed to delay judgment.

54.

Accordingly, Enclosure 8 is allowed. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the sum of RM1,042,248.86 as at 30.9.2025.

The Defendant shall pay interest as prayed, subject to the terms of the facility documents and the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendant shall also pay costs of RM5000.00 Enclosure 8 to the Plaintiff, subject to allocatur. Dated 18hb May 2026 (MOHAMAD REDZUAN BIN IDRUS) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT NCC 5 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR APPEARANCES Plaintiff’s Counsel : Nur Syahirah binti Mohamad Taib (B H Gan nor & Kim (Kuala Lumpur)) Defendant’s Counsel : Mahendran A/L Shunmugan Sundaram (Izauddin, Firdaus & Mahendran (Kuala Lumpur))

National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 1 CLJ (Rep) 283

Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail Ali Johor & Ors [1992] 1 CLJ (Rep) 14

Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying [2006] 3 CLJ 544

RHB Bank Bhd v Tan Swee Long Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] 10 CLJ 519

Renofac Builder (M) Sdn Bhd v Chase Perdana Bhd [2010]

Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Salleh bin Hj Mohd Nor [1988] 2

Maybank Investment Bank Bhd v Alan Rajendram [2018] MLJU 1683

Rules of Court 2012 - Order 14