Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Berhad v Epic Industri (M) Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-812-11/2025)

1.EPIC INDUSTRI (M) SDN BHD

2.SAIDI BIN AB RAHIM

3.MUHAMMAD SYAFIQ ISYRAF BIN SAIDI (IC NO.:941210-14-5297) …DEFENDANTS S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is the Plaintiff's application in Enclosure 7 for summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally for the sum of RM12,059,323.08 as at 21.11.2025, together with continuing interest, late payment charges and costs. The questions for determination are whether the Plaintiff has discharged its threshold burden of establishing a prima facie case and, if so, whether the Defendants have raised any bona fide triable issue warranting a trial.

Having considered the cause papers, the affidavits and the submissions of learned counsel, this Court allows the application in Enclosure 7 with costs. The reasons follow.

By a Facility Agreement, the Plaintiff granted to the 1st Defendant a financing facility of up to RM25,200,000.00 for the acquisition of a vessel known as the "Epic Waja" ("the Vessel"). The facility was secured, inter alia, by a statutory mortgage over the Vessel. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg

The 2nd and 3rd Defendants executed an irrevocable and unconditional joint and several guarantee in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of the obligations of the 1st Defendant under the facility.

Upon the 1st Defendant's default, the Plaintiff commenced Admiralty In Rem proceedings under Suit No. WA-27NCC-37- 08/2022 to enforce the statutory mortgage. The Vessel together with her unused bunkers was sold, pursuant to an order of the Admiralty Court, for the total sum of RM4,122,223.29.

By the order of the Admiralty Court, the proceeds of sale were directed to be applied first towards the Sheriff's commission and the Sheriff's costs and expenses of arrest, custody and sale of the Vessel, and only thereafter towards the mortgagee's claim. In compliance with that order, RM100,025.00 was applied to the Sheriff's commission and RM3,733,902.35 to the Sheriff's costs and expenses, leaving a residual sum of RM288,295.94 which was applied in partial satisfaction of the Plaintiff's claim.

Notices of Demand were issued by the Plaintiff to each of the Defendants in September 2025. The Defendants did not satisfy the demands. The 1st Defendant, by letter dated 22.9.2025, S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg proposed a repayment schedule and sought a waiver of interest and late payment charges. The Plaintiff rejected the proposal.

As at 21.11.2025, the Plaintiff's certified Statement of Account records the outstanding sum as RM12,059,323.08. This action followed.

(A)The Plaintiff's case 9. The Plaintiff submits that indebtedness is conclusively established by the executed Facility Agreement and the Guarantee, by the certified Statement of Account which (by reason of clause 11.09 of the Facility Agreement) is binding and conclusive evidence of the amounts owed, and by the Bill of Costs together with the Admiralty Court's order which mandated the priority application of the sale proceeds. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendants' opposition consists of bare denials, unsupported by documentary evidence, and is an afterthought wholly inconsistent with the 1st Defendant's own letter of 22.9.2025. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg

(B)The Defendants' case 10. The Defendants resist the application upon three principal grounds: a) that the Plaintiff has failed properly to account for the RM4.12 million sale proceeds, and that the distribution of those proceeds to third parties was not contractually justified; b) that the quantum claimed is excessive and wrongly computed in that credit for the sale proceeds was not properly given; and c) that the liability of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants as guarantors is contingent upon, and falls away with, any dispute touching upon the 1st Defendant's liability. IV.ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

Distilling the rival contentions, the issues for determination by this Court are as follows: i. Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012; S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg ii. Whether the certified Statement of Account is conclusive of the quantum, no fraud or manifest error having been pleaded or established; iii. Whether the application of the sale proceeds in priority to the Sheriff's commission and the Sheriff's costs and expenses raises any bona fide triable issue; iv. Whether the 1st Defendant's letter of 22.9.2025 is consistent with the defence now sought to be raised; and v. Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have raised any independent defence sufficient to defeat the guarantee claim.

(A)Burden and standard of proof 12. The standard of proof in civil matters is the balance of probabilities (Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372). At the summary judgment stage, however, the defendant need not prove the defence on a balance of probabilities; it suffices to show, on affidavit, that the defence is bona fide and raises a triable issue. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg

(B)Order 14 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 13. Order 14 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2012 provides: “Where in an action to which this rule applies a statement of claim has been served on a defendant and that defendant has entered an appearance in the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that that defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part except as to the amount of any damages claimed, apply to the Court for judgment against that defendant.”

The burden lies at the threshold upon the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case on the affidavits. Upon that being done, the evidential burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a bona fide defence on the merits or some other reason why there ought to be a trial.

The Federal Court in National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300 settled the basic requirements applicable in this jurisdiction and confirmed that, upon the plaintiff satisfying those requirements, the onus shifts to the defendant to disclose by affidavit sufficient facts to entitle him to defend. In Tong Lee Hua v Yong Kah Chin [1979] 1 MLJ 233, it was held that it suffices for the defendant to raise a bona S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg fide triable issue amounting to a defence on the merits. In South East Asia Insurance Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 CLJ 1045, the Court of Appeal reiterated that Order 14 is to be invoked only in plain and obvious cases.

(C)Conclusive evidence clauses 16. The Federal Court in Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying [2006] 2 MLJ 685 has held that a conclusive evidence clause renders the certified statement of account final and conclusive of the amount owed, save where fraud or manifest error is shown on the face of the certificate. The evidential burden lies upon the borrower to displace the certificate, and that burden is not discharged by bare denial.

(D)Admiralty priorities 17. Section 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 confers upon the High Court the same jurisdiction and authority in matters of admiralty as that exercised by the High Court of Justice in England under the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the Sheriff’s costs and expenses of arrest, custody and sale of the vessel, together with the Sheriff’s commission, are treated as expenses of the court and rank in priority to the claims of mortgagees. Once the Admiralty Court has, by order, determined the priorities and directed the application of the proceeds of sale, a mortgagee is S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg bound to comply with that order and may not mount a collateral attack upon it in subsequent proceedings.

(E)Guarantees 18. A guarantee imposes upon the guarantor a liability co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. Where the liability of the principal debtor is established, the guarantor's liability follows as a matter of contract, save where the guarantor pleads and substantiates an independent defence such as discharge, non est factum, material variation without consent or misrepresentation. VI.ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

(A)Issue (i): Prima facie case 19. The Plaintiff has produced, on affidavit, the executed Facility Agreement, the executed Guarantee, the certified Statement of Account, the Notices of Demand and the order of the Admiralty Court. Default is not disputed on the affidavits. This Court finds, as a matter of threshold, that the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case and has discharged its initial burden under Order 14 Rule

The evidential burden accordingly shifts to the Defendants. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg

(B)Issue (ii): Quantum and the Statement of Account 20. Clause 11.09 of the Facility Agreement provides that a Statement of Account certified by an authorised officer of the Plaintiff shall be binding and conclusive evidence of the indebtedness against the 1st Defendant. The Statement of Account dated 21.11.2025 is duly certified.

The Defendants' challenge to quantum is, on a plain reading of the affidavits, a bare assertion. No alternative computation is exhibited. No expert reconciliation is tendered. No specific item of charge is identified as wrong. Neither fraud nor manifest error is pleaded with particulars.

Applying Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying, this Court gives full effect to the conclusive evidence clause and accepts the certified Statement of Account as conclusive of the sum of RM12,059,323.08 as at 21.11.2025. The Defendants' challenge to quantum raises no triable issue.

(C)Issue (iii): Application of the sale proceeds 23. The Defendants' submission that the RM4.12 million was not properly accounted for, and that disbursements to third parties were not contractually justified, falls away once the structure of S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg the admiralty sale is properly understood. The proceeds were not at the Plaintiff's disposal; they were paid into Court and distributed by order of the Admiralty Court.

By virtue of section 24 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 read with the order of the Admiralty Court, the Sheriff's commission and the Sheriff's costs and expenses of arrest, custody and sale ranked in priority to the mortgagee. The Bill of Costs particularising the sum of RM3,733,902.35 has been exhibited. The Plaintiff received only the residual RM288,295.94, which has been applied in partial reduction of the indebtedness.

It is not open to the Defendants in this civil suit to impeach the order of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction; nor can the Plaintiff be faulted for complying with it. No triable issue arises.

(D)Issue (iv): The letter of 22.9.2025 26. The 1st Defendant's letter of 22.9.2025 is contemporaneous with the demand. It does not deny the debt. It does not dispute the quantum. It does not impugn the application of the sale proceeds. It seeks a repayment schedule and a waiver of interest and late payment charges. That is the language of indulgence, not of dispute. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg

As observed in Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd. [2015] 2 CLJ 453, a debtor's failure to rebut a demand, coupled with a proposal to settle or restructure, is treated as corroborative of indebtedness and inconsistent with a bona fide defence. The defences now articulated, having surfaced only on the eve of summary judgment, are properly characterised as an afterthought. This Court draws the inference that the present defences were not held bona fide at the material time.

(E)Issue (v): The guarantors' liability 28. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants executed an irrevocable joint and several guarantee. Their liability is co-extensive with that of the 1st Defendant. Once the liability and quantum of the 1st Defendant are established, the liability of the guarantors follows. No independent defence has been pleaded or substantiated: no discharge, no plea of non est factum, no variation without consent, no misrepresentation. Their reliance upon the 1st Defendant's challenges, which this Court has found devoid of merit, is unsustainable.

(F)Disposal of remaining submissions 29. For completeness, this Court has considered every submission advanced by the Defendants, including those touching upon the conduct of negotiations and the alleged failure to give credit. None of them, taken individually or cumulatively, amounts to a S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg bona fide triable issue. They are equivocal, unsupported by documentary evidence, and inconsistent with the contemporaneous record. This Court is therefore satisfied that this is a plain and obvious case in which the Defendants have failed to disclose any defence on the merits. VII.CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

For the reasons set out above, the Defendants have failed to raise any bona fide triable issue. The Plaintiff's application in Enclosure 7 is allowed.

This Court accordingly orders as follows: a) Judgment is entered against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, jointly and severally, in the sum of RM12,059,323.08 as at 21.11.2025; b) Continuing interest and late payment charges at the contractual rates from 22.11.2025 until the date of full and final settlement; c) Costs to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, jointly and severally, the basis of the order being that this was a fully-contested Order 14 application with written and oral S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg submissions, the quantum of costs to be assessed if not agreed; and d) Liberty to apply.

This Court records its appreciation to learned counsel on both sides for their measured and focused submissions, which assisted in the disposal of this matter. Dated 22hb May 2026 (MOHAMAD REDZUAN BIN IDRUS) JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER KUALA LUMPUR HIGH COURT NCC 5 WILAYAH PERSEKUTUAN KUALA LUMPUR S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: Ratha a/p Govindasamay & Siva Darshen a/l Sevandran (Skrine Advocates & Solicitors (Kuala Lumpur)) For the Defendants: Nurul Huda binti Razali (Haniff Khatri (Petaling Jaya))

Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying (trading as KH Trading) & Anor [2006] 2 MLJ 685.

Dream Property Sdn Bhd v Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd. [2015] 2 CLJ 453

Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372.

The National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd [1984] 2 MLJ 300.

South East Asia Insurance Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia [1998] 1 CLJ 1045

Tong Lee Hua v Yong Kah Chin [1979] 1 MLJ 233.

1.Courts of Judicature Act 1964 — section 24.

2.Rules of Court 2012 — Order 14 Rule 1. S/N bjlbyfwWxUSIdfKgUGsg