The litigation converges on a single pivotal issue that is the validity of the Letter of Guarantee dated 5th September 2018. I. Chiong Hoe Kean alleges forgery and procedural defects. II. Chiong Hoe Keat admits execution but raises prematurity and abuse of process. III. Alliance Bank Malaysia Berhad seeks enforcement of the loan and guarantees. IV. Zhang Jia Birdnest Sdn Bhd disputes liability under the corporate guarantee. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION A) Authenticity of Signature The first issue concerns the authenticity of Chiong Hoe Kean’s signature on the Joint & Several Letter of Guarantee. This Court must determine based on expert evidence and witness testimony whether the signature is genuine or forged and if forgery is established the guarantee is rendered null, void and unenforceable against him, thereby absolving him of liability under that instrument. B) Validity of the Guarantee Documents The second issue concerns the validity of the guarantee documents. The Court must determine whether the alleged defects in the witnessing process, address details and execution formalities are sufficient to render the Joint & Several Guarantee dated 5th September 2018 invalid. C) Liability of the Guarantors The third issue concerns the liability of the guarantors. If the guarantees are found to be valid, the Court must then decide whether Chiong Hoe Kean and Chiong Hoe Keat are jointly and severally liable for the outstanding loan amount under the Joint & Several Guarantee, and further, whether Zhang Jia Birdnest Sdn Bhd, as corporate guarantor, is bound by the Corporate Guarantee and therefore liable for the debt. D) Prematurity and Abuse of Process The fourth issue concerns the procedural propriety of Alliance Bank’s action in Suit 16. The Court must determine whether the claim against the guarantors is premature or amounts to an abuse of process, given that the Bank already holds a Deed of Assignment over the secured property and has attempted to auction it. The Judge must also decide whether pursuing guarantors while simultaneously enforcing the property security constitutes impermissible double recovery or whether the Bank is entitled to proceed concurrently against both the security and the guarantors. E) Quantum of Debt The fifth issue concerns the quantum of debt claimed by Alliance Bank. The Court must assess whether the sum of RM7,289,524.37 (as of 30th November 2022) has been accurately and properly calculated, taking into account instalment payments made by the Borrower prior to winding up, the reserve price of the secured property scheduled for auction and whether the interest rates applied were stipulated in the guarantee or loan documents. Ultimately, the Court must decide if the amount claimed is recoverable in full or requires adjustment. COURTS FINDINGS A) Authenticity of Signature i) In the context of civil litigation within the jurisdiction of Malaysia, any allegation of forgery of signatures shall be deemed a grave and serious contention. The burden of proof rests upon the party asserting such allegation and the applicable standard is that of the balance of probabilities. The Courts have consistently required that the evidence adduced must be clear, cogent and convincing in nature. Such proof commonly encompasses expert testimony in the field of handwriting analysis, comparative examination against signatures known to be genuine and corroborative circumstances. ii) Contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and subsequent cross-examination similarly confirm that Chiong Hoe Kean made no allegation of forgery and his only concern was a possible bankruptcy. The absence of protest demonstrates that he knowingly and voluntarily executed the Letter of Guarantee, consistent with prior practice between the brothers. The present claim of forgery is an afterthought intended solely to evade liability. iii) In summary, Chiong Hoe Kean, carries the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950 to substantiate his allegation of forgery. His claim is premised solely on the contention that the signature on the Letter of Guarantee dated 5th September 2018 is not his. Sections 67 and 73(2) of the Act require that handwriting be proven and permit judicial comparison of disputed signatures with those admitted or proved. During the trial, no expert evidence was adduced to establish that Chiong Hoe Kean’s signature on the guarantee was forged. Accordingly, the allegation rests on assertion alone unsupported by expert testimony and must be weighed against the statutory requirements and evidentiary standards imposed by law. iv) The evidence of DW2 establishes that Chiong Hoe Kean was physically present before the Notary Public, his identity was duly verified and the signature was affixed in the Notary’s presence. In my opinion, his contention that the Letter of Guarantee is invalid for want of a notarial certificate or jurat is misconceived, as such requirements apply only to affidavits or statutory declarations, not to guarantees intended for local use. v) I accept DW2’s testimony, directly contradicts the allegation of forgery and confirms compliance when confirming that he had personally witnessed Chiong Hoe Kean signing the execution papers and physically present. His bare denial is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act 1950, particularly in light of Section 67 of the Act, which requires proof of handwriting. vi) I agree with that allegations of forgery cannot succeed without expert testimony or comparative evidence, and courts have dismissed similar claims where parties relied solely on assertion. In Kim Fort Sdn Bhd v Yayasan Kraftangan Kelantan & Ors [2026] MLJU 222 and Zaidi bin Md Yusoff v Noraini bt Mokhtar [2026] MLJU 85, the courts emphasized that mere assertions are insufficient. Similarly, in Setiakon Engineering Sdn Bhd v Mak Yan Tai [2024] MLJU 1852 and Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Bhd v Instyle Furniture Industries Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 871, forgery claims failed due to the absence of expert evidence or signature comparisons. vii) The same reasoning was also applied in Lean Brothers Transport Sdn Bhd v Mohd Daud bin Kasim & Ors [2023] MLJU 2144, and Ang Hock Heng v Ngu Tieng Ung [2025] MLJU 4124, where the courts dismissed allegations unsupported by expert testimony. Even where expert evidence was adduced, as in McLaren Saksama (M) Sdn Bhd v Hong Leong Bank Bhd [2014] 7 MLJ 104, the courts required that such evidence be reliable and cogently reasoned. Collectively, these cases emphasize that without independent expert evidence, forgery allegations cannot be established on the balance of probabilities. viii) Chiong Hoe Keat at the close of the Plaintiff’s case, elected to submit that there was no case to answer. The central issue before the court is whether the Plaintiff has discharged the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to establish forgery. In Yui Chin Song & Ors v Lee Ming Chai & Ors [2019] 6 MLJ 417, the Federal Court reaffirmed that the burden of proof rests at all times upon the Plaintiff. The absence of evidence from the defendant does not absolve the Plaintiff from proving his case. This principle is consistent with the long-standing rule that the Plaintiff must establish a legally enforceable claim before judgment can be granted. ix) Further, in Mohd Nor Afandi bin Mohamed Junus v Rahman Shah Alang Ibrahim & Anor [2008] 3 MLJ 81, Suriyadi JCA recognised two circumstances under which a defendant may submit that there is no case to answer, firstly, where even accepting the Plaintiff’s evidence at face value, no case is established in law and secondly, where the Plaintiff’s evidence is so unsatisfactory or unreliable that the burden of proof is not discharged. x) The Federal Court in Syarikat Kemajuan Timbermine Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Negeri Kelantan Darul Naim [2015] 3 MLJ 609 reiterated that the Plaintiff must prove the existence of a legally enforceable claim on the balance of probabilities, even if the defendant elects to call no witnesses. The burden of proof remains firmly with the Plaintiff throughout the proceedings. Applying these authorities, accordingly, I find that the Defendant’s submission of no case to answer is appropriate. B) Validity of the Guarantee Documents i) Chiong Hoe Kean’s technical objections to the execution of the bank’s documents do not withstand scrutiny when examined in proper legal context. Firstly, the objection concerning the absence of a jurat and the alleged improper exercise of powers by the Notary Public is misconceived. In my opinion, a jurat is required only for affidavits or statutory declarations and not for commercial instruments such as guarantees. The essential requirement for a valid guarantee is the clear intention of the signatory to be bound, and his signature was duly witnessed by a Notary Public which satisfies the evidentiary requirement of attestation. ii) Second, Chiong Hoe Kean’s complaint regarding the absence of a small seal on initials across all 22 pages amounts to a mere technicality. In the absence of any statutory provision mandating such a seal or evidence of prejudice arising from its omission, this objection cannot invalidate the agreement. In my opinion, the substantive execution of the guarantee still remains intact and the absence of seals on initials do not affect the enforceability of the instrument. iii) Thirdly, his assertion that the contents of the guarantee were not explained is contradicted by the surrounding circumstances. The Chiong Hoe Kean is literate in English and had prior dealings with his siblings in similar guarantee arrangements. In such context, the allegation that no explanation was provided is unsubstantiated and lacks evidential support. iv) Taken together, these objections are technical in nature, unsupported by statutory authority or credible evidence and do not affect the validity or enforceability of the Letter of Guarantee. The fundamental requirements of execution are the identity verification, voluntary signing and proper attestation, which were clearly established and satisfied renders Chiong Hoe Kean’s objections not sustainable. v) A notarised document carries a strong presumption of authenticity and regularity and this presumption stands unless convincingly rebutted. In the present case, Chiong Hoe Kean has produced no evidence of collusion, impropriety or fraud on the part of the Notary Public. DW3 confirmed that he had no personal connection to Chiong Hoe Kean and no interest in the transaction and his testimony established that his identity was verified and the signature was affixed voluntarily in his presence. vi) Allied Bank, accepted the Letter of Guarantee in good faith, relying on its notarisation in the ordinary course of business. DW1 testified that the guarantee was prepared by solicitors, executed by the parties and returned to the Bank before disbursement of the loan. The document was complete, regular on its face and bore no visible defect. The Bank conducted due diligence in accordance with its internal credit and risk policies and was under no obligation to undertake forensic handwriting before disbursement of the loan. vii) Chiong Hoe Kean’s bare allegation of forgery was raised only after the default and to permit a guarantor to evade liability on such grounds would undermine commercial certainty and the reliability of notarised instruments. In the case of Malayan Banking Bhd v Tan Ke Xiou [2022] MLJU 1848, the court affirms that guarantees witnessed by a Notary Public are valid and enforceable, and allegations of fraud or forgery must be substantiated by cogent evidence. In the present case, Chiong Hoe Kean has failed to discharge his burden of proof and the Letter of Guarantee stands as a valid and binding instrument enforceable by the bank. C) Liability of the Guarantors i) The guarantors in this case are contractually bound under the terms of the Letter of Guarantee to satisfy the borrower’s obligations in the event of default. In my opinion, the guarantee was duly executed witnessed by a Notary Public and bears the notarial seal, thereby carrying a presumption of authenticity and regularity. Chiong Hoe Kean has failed to rebut this presumption with any cogent evidence of forgery, fraud or impropriety. ii) Further, Clause 12.2 of the guarantee expressly provides that a certificate or statement of indebtedness issued by the Bank and signed by an authorized officer is conclusive evidence of the amount due. Both the Statement of Account and Certificate of Indebtedness clearly set out the outstanding sum under the RM6,750,000.00 term loan facility as at 30th November 2022. iii) In Suit 16, in my opinion, the Bank acted in good faith, relied on the notarised guarantee and disbursed the loan in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, the guarantee is valid, enforceable and binding. The guarantors are liable for the outstanding indebtedness and to permit avoidance of liability on bare allegations would undermine commercial certainty and the integrity of banking practice. iv) The Corporate Guarantee given by Zhang Jia Birdnest Sdn Bhd to the Bank, in my opinion is a recognised viable form of security in most commercial transactions. Such guarantees are critical in facilitating credit, particularly for banks and financial institutions, as they provide an additional layer of assurance beyond the debtor’s promise to repay. v) Courts generally treat them as binding contracts and in commercial practice, banks rely on these guarantees as consensual security and unless successfully challenged on grounds such as fraud, forgery or lack of authority, they remain valid and enforceable. vi) In my opinion, Zhang Jia Birdsnest Sdn Bhd has failed to raise any valid legal grounds to challenge the Corporate Guarantee, such as misrepresentation, lack of authority, duress or non-compliance with statutory requirements. It is trite law that guarantees are generally upheld unless compelling evidence demonstrates otherwise. The burden of proof lies squarely upon the guarantor to establish the invalidity of the instrument and in the present case, I find that the corporate guarantee was duly executed in accordance with the law and is legally sound. D) Prematurity and Abuse of Process i) The Defendants in Suit 16, Chiong Hoe Keat and Zhang Jia Birdsnest Sdn Bhd argue that Alliance Bank's claim amounts to an abuse of process and double recovery, as the bank has already benefited from a Deed of Assignment and scheduled a public auction of the charged property. ii) While the bank has exercised its rights under the charge, this does not preclude it from pursuing its contractual rights against the guarantors for any shortfall or the full outstanding amount. The Deed of Assignment and the charge over the property are separate securities from the personal guarantees provided by them. The proceeds from the sale of the property will be applied towards the outstanding debt, and if there is a deficit, the bank is entitled to pursue its claims against the guarantors. iii) The argument that the reserve price of the auction is significantly lower than the claimed sum does not automatically invalidate the bank's claim against the guarantors. The bank is entitled to recover the full outstanding amount, and the auction proceeds will be set off against this debt. iv) The contention that interest rates were not stated in the Letter of Guarantee is a matter of contractual interpretation. However, the Facilities Agreement, which the Letter of Guarantee is ancillary to, would typically stipulate the interest rates. The bank is entitled to claim interest as per the loan agreement. E) Quantum of Debt i) The Statement of Account and Certificate of Indebtedness issued by Allied Bank are conclusive evidence of the debt unless manifest error is shown. Clause 12.2 of the guarantee expressly provides that a certificate signed by an authorized officer is final and binding on the guarantor. In this case, the Statement of Account reflects the outstanding sum under the RM6,750,000.00 term loan facility and the Certificate of Indebtedness clearly sets out the amount due as at 30th November 2022. The purpose of such certificates is to dispense with the need for the bank to prove the quantum of debt, shifting the burden onto the defendants to demonstrate error. ii) The amount has not been disputed or cross-examined during trial with the bank’s officers on the figures and no evidence of manifest error have been adduced. In the case of Chen Heng Ping v Intradagang Merchant Bankers Bhd [1995] 3 CLJ 690 and Cempaka Finance Berhad v Ho Lai Yin [2006] 3 CLJ 544, confirms that certificates of indebtedness are binding and operate as conclusive evidence unless fraud or error is shown. Here, the defendants have failed to plead or prove any inaccuracies, and the debt remains validly established against them.