Chemstation DCCM Sdn. Bhd. v Looe Chee Keong (AA-22NCvC-70-08/2025)

High Court of Malaysia19 May 2026

The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.

Open official source PDF Report an issue

Content

1 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI IPOH 5 DALAM NEGERI PERAK DARUL RIDZUAN, MALAYSIA GUAMAN SIVIL NO.: AA-22NCvC-70-08/2025 ANTARA 10 CHEMSTATION DCCM SDN BHD [No. Syarikat: 200001031489 (534096-M)] …PLAINTIF DAN 15 LOOE CHEE KEONG (NO. K/P: 740719-08-5695) …DEFENDAN GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT 20 INTRODUCTION [1] This is the plaintiff’s application under Enclosure 9 for summary judgment pursuant to Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 against the defendant for a substantial sum together with interest and costs. 25 [2] Having considered the cause papers, affidavits, written submissions, authorities cited by parties, and the oral submissions during the Zoom hearing, this court is satisfied that the plaintiff has established its claim and that the defendant has failed to raise any bona fide triable issue warranting a full trial. 30 19/06/2026 08:30:54 AA-22NCvC-70-08/2025 Kand. 41 BACKGROUND FACTS [3] The plaintiff, is a company involved in the supply of chemical products and related services in Malaysia. The defendant was, at all material times, a director, contributor, and shareholder of CK Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd (“CK Rubber”). 35 [4] Prior to the winding up of CK Rubber on 17.9.2021, the plaintiff had supplied chemical products and services to CK Rubber pursuant to various commercial transactions. The plaintiff alleges that invoices were issued from time to time for the said supplies and that substantial sums remained outstanding. According to the plaintiff, 40 the total outstanding amount under the invoices was RM1,963,450.46. [5] As security for CK Rubber’s indebtedness, the defendant executed two instruments in favour of the plaintiff, namely a guarantee and Indemnity dated 30.10.2018 and a deed of guarantee dated 45 22.7.2021. The plaintiff contends that both instruments constituted continuing guarantees whereby the defendant agreed to personally guarantee payment of CK Rubber’s liabilities to the plaintiff. [6] Subsequently, CK Rubber was wound up on 14.9.2021. Thereafter, discussions allegedly took place between the plaintiff and the 50 defendant concerning the settlement of the outstanding debt. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant induced the plaintiff to enter into a debt repayment agreement dated 8.07.2022, wherein the defendant acknowledged indebtedness in the sum of RM2,590,838.50 and agreed to a repayment arrangement. The 55 plaintiff further alleges that the defendant represented that the outstanding sums would be settled notwithstanding the winding up of CK Rubber. [7] The defendant disputes liability and contends, inter alia, that he was not personally liable for the debts claimed, that the guarantees were 60 limited in scope and duration, and that there exist substantial triable issues requiring a full trial. PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS UNDER ORDER 14 [8] The procedural requirements under Order 14 have been complied with. The defendant entered an appearance and filed a defence. 65 The plaintiff has also expressly deposed that the defendant has no defence to the claim. Therefore, the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate the existence of bona fide triable issues. NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM [9] The plaintiff’s claim arises from: 70 a) the guarantee and indemnity dated 12.11.2018; b) the deed of guarantee dated 22.7.2021; and c) the debt repayment agreement dated 8.7.2022. [10] The underlying debt originated from goods sold and delivered by the 75 plaintiff to CK Rubber Industries Sdn Bhd. The defendant personally executed the guarantees and subsequently executed the debt repayment agreement in his personal capacity. [11] Most importantly, the defendant never denied signing all three documents referred to above. 80 CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS [12] Clause 12 of the second guarantee provides that the plaintiff’s certificate of indebtedness shall constitute conclusive evidence of the amount owing unless manifest error is shown. The plaintiff produced a certificate certifying that the defendant was indebted in 85 the sum of RM2,936,962.62. Despite disputing liability, the defendant failed to produce any calculation, reconciliation, or documentary evidence to show that the certified amount was erroneous. Mere bare denials, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, are insufficient to defeat an application for summary 90 judgment. DEBT REPAYMENT AGREEMENT [13] The Debt Repayment Agreement is a significant document in this case. It expressly identifies both CK Rubber and the defendant as “debtors” and imposes joint and several liability upon them. The 95 legal effect of such a provision is that the plaintiff is entitled to proceed against either debtor individually or both collectively. During the hearing, the plaintiff satisfactorily clarified that the present action is brought against the defendant personally pursuant to the guarantees and the debt repayment agreement, notwithstanding the 100 winding up of CK Rubber. The defendant’s assertion that he did not intend to be personally bound is inconsistent with the clear terms of the agreement, which he voluntarily signed. Further, valid consideration existed, as the plaintiff agreed to permit repayment by instalments rather than immediately enforce the entire debt. 105 EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE AND ADMISSIONS [14] The plaintiff produced extensive email correspondence demonstrating negotiations spanning several months before the execution of the debt repayment agreement. The emails reveal:

repeated demands for payment, 110

(ii) discussions regarding the outstanding indebtedness,

III

(iii) negotiations on the repayment structure,

(iv) confirmation of the repayment schedule; and

eventual agreement on the outstanding sum of RM2,590,838.50. 115 [15] Most significantly, the defendant himself sent emails confirming his acceptance of both the repayment plan and the agreed-upon outstanding amount. [16] During the hearing, the court specifically queried the defendant regarding these emails. The defendant’s explanation was merely 120 that the emails employed the word “we” rather than “I” and therefore did not establish personal liability. This explanation is not persuasive. The defendant was copied throughout the negotiations, personally participated in the communications, and ultimately signed the debt repayment agreement. The contemporaneous 125 documents overwhelmingly support the plaintiff’s case. SECOND GUARANTEE – CONTINUING GUARANTEE [17] The defendant contended that the second guarantee applied only prospectively and did not extend to existing indebtedness. This court is unable to accept that contention. Clause 2A expressly refers 130 to “any and all amount owing” to the plaintiff, language which is broad, unrestricted, and consistent with a continuing guarantee. During the hearing, the plaintiff satisfactorily directed the court to the relevant provisions demonstrating that the guarantee extended to all outstanding liabilities. The defendant’s interpretation is artificial, 135 unreasonable, and unsupported by the plain wording of the document itself. WINDING UP OF CK RUBBER [18] The defendant placed considerable reliance on the winding up of CK Rubber. However, the winding up does not extinguish the 140 defendant’s personal obligations arising under the guarantees and the debt repayment agreement. The plaintiff’s cause of action is contractual and directed against the defendant personally. In any event, the agreement contains a severability clause preserving its enforceability against the defendant, notwithstanding any issues 145 affecting CK Rubber. ABSENCE OF KELVIN TAN AND SIU CHIN [19] The defendant argued that Kelvin Tan and Siu Chin ought to have 150 affirmed affidavits as material witnesses. This court finds no merit in that contention. The present application is one for summary judgment and is founded principally upon written agreements and contemporaneous documentary evidence. [20] The plaintiff’s deponent adequately explained the relevant 155 documents and had access to the plaintiff’s records. More importantly, the defendant never denied executing the guarantees and the debt repayment agreement. In the circumstances, the absence of affidavits from Kelvin Tan and Siu Chin does not give rise to any bona fide triable issue warranting a full trial. 160 NO BONA FIDE TRIABLE ISSUE [21] Having considered the totality of the evidence, this court finds that the defendant’s defence consists largely of bare denials, unreasonable interpretations of the documents, and assertions unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. 165 [22] Conversely, the guarantees, the debt repayment agreement, the certificate of indebtedness, and the email correspondence consistently support the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant has therefore failed to discharge the burden of establishing any bona fide triable issue warranting a full trial. 170 CONCLUSION AND ORDER [23] Accordingly, Enclosure 9 is allowed. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of RM2,936,962.62 175 together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 31.5.2025 until full settlement. [24] The plaintiff is awarded costs RM5000.00. Interest on costs is fixed at 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full realisation pursuant to Order 59 Rule 24 of the Rules of Court 2012. 180 Dated : 10th Jun 2026 [MOSES SUSAYAN] JUDGE 185 HIGH COURT IN MALAYA AT IPOH, PERAK Counsel : For the Plaintif : Tan Eng Keat 190 (together with Koh Kim Bee) Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs Gan, Lee & Tan] Kuala Lumpur 195 For the Defendant : Kaladevi a/p Chandrasekharan Advocates and Solicitors [Messrs N. Ahilan & Associates] Georgetown, Pulau Pinang 200 (Notice: This Grounds of Decision is subject to official editorial revision) Headnotes: 205 CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary Judgment – Application under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether defendant raised any bona fide triable issue – Whether guarantees and debt repayment agreement created personal liability – Whether certificate of indebtedness constituted conclusive evidence of amount owing – Whether second Guarantee was 210 a continuing guarantee covering “any and all amount owing” – Whether email correspondence amounted to admissions of indebtedness and repayment obligations – Effect of winding up of CK Rubber on defendant’s personal obligations – Whether absence of affidavits from Kelvin Tan and Siu Chin created triable issues 215

Something wrong on this page?

Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.

Report an issue Request removal

Malaysian judgment

Case metadata

Court: High Court of Malaysia
Decision date: 19 May 2026
Case number: AA-22NCvC-70-08/2025
Coram: YA Tuan Moses Susayan
Practice area: CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary Judgment – Application under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether defendant raised any bona fide triable issue – Whether guarantees and debt repayment agreement created personal liability – Whether certificate of indebtedness constituted conclusive evidence of amount owing – Whether second Guarantee was a continuing guarantee covering “any and all amount owing” – Whether email correspondence amounted to admissions of indebtedness and repayment obligations – Effect of winding up of CK Rubber on defendant’s personal obligations – Whether absence of affidavits from Kelvin Tan and Siu Chin created triable issues
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 19 Jun 2026
Source ID: 69d1f595-c2f6-44d8-8d41-d7c3d75dc34e

Catchwords

CIVIL PROCEDURE: Summary Judgment – Application under Order 14 Rules of Court 2012 – Whether defendant raised any bona fide triable issue – Whether guarantees and debt repayment agreement created personal liability – Whether certificate of indebtedness constituted conclusive evidence of amount owing – Whether second Guarantee was a continuing guarantee covering “any and all amount owing” – Whether email correspondence amounted to admissions of indebtedness and repayment obligations – Effect of winding up of CK Rubber on defendant’s personal obligations – Whether absence of affidavits from Kelvin Tan and Siu Chin created triable issues

Parties

CHEMSTATION DCCM SDN. BHD. - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
LOOE CHEE KEONG - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Content

Catchwords