East Coast Ocean Blue Service Sdn. Bhd. v Cekal Suria Logistics Sdn. Bhd. (BL-B52NCC-97-12/2024)

Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (Encl. 3);

(ii) Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim (Encl. 8);

(iii) Plaintiff’s Reply to Defence and Counterclaim (Encl. 10);

(iv) Plaintiff’s Notice of Application filed on 5.03.2025 (Encl. 11);

Supporting Affidavit affirmed by Luang Chu Seng on 28.02.2025 (Encl 12)

(vi) Defendant’s Affidavit in Reply by Sew Chin Phang on 17.03.2025 (Encl. 13)

(vii) Written Submissions filed by both parties.(Encl. 15-21). BACKGROUND FACTS [4] Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are companies incorporated in Malaysia and were at all material times engaged in commercial dealings with one another. The Plaintiff’s claim is for the sum of RM395,400.00, being the balance due for services rendered to the Defendant in the ordinary course of business. The services were provided at the Defendant’s request, and despite receiving and accepting them, the Defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount after several demands. The Plaintiff also claims interest at 1.5% per month on the outstanding sum in accordance with the terms of the invoices issued. [5] On 28 October 2024, the Plaintiff issued a notice of demand to the Defendant claiming RM462,162.00, being the total amount then due for services rendered. Following the notice, the Defendant made a part payment of RM30,000.00, leaving a balance of RM425,400.00 still outstanding. [6] Subsequently, on 22 November 2024, the Defendant sent a letter requesting a two-month extension to settle the debt, which the Plaintiff did not agree to. 3 | P a g e [7] The Plaintiff stated that all services rendered and accepted without protest, supported by invoices and job completion reports bearing the Defendant’s acknowledgment. [8] As at 4 December 2024, the statement of account maintained by the Plaintiff showed an outstanding balance of RM395,400.00, after accounting for all payments received. The Plaintiff claims from the Defendant the sum of RM395,400.00, being the balance due for services rendered, together with interest at the rate of 1.5% per month from 1 December 2024 until full settlement, costs, and such further or other relief as this Court deems fit. [9] In the Defence, the Defendant admitted having accepted the services rendered by the Plaintiff but denied that the services were complete. The Defendant also asserted that some of the services rendered were not in accordance with the required specifications and that the Plaintiff had failed to fully perform its obligations under the commercial arrangement. The Defendant further claimed an entitlement to set off against the amount claimed by the Plaintiff. [10] By way of Counterclaim, the Defendant sought a declaration that the Plaintiff’s claim is wrongful and contrary to the Financial Services Act 2013, alleging that the Plaintiff’s claim was unclear and excessive. The Defendant also claimed damages to be assessed and costs of the action. GROUNDS OF APPLICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF [11] The Plaintiff‘s application is premised on the basis that the Defendant’s Defence consists mainly of bare denials unsupported by documents or particulars, despite the Defendant having acknowledged receipt of the goods. The Plaintiff further averred that the Counterclaim is devoid of particulars, does not disclose any legitimate cause of action, and merely repeats assertions inconsistent with the admitted facts. 4 | P a g e [13] The Plaintiff contended that the invoices with job completion reports and statement of account exhibited in Exhibit B, affidavit in support encl. 12, clearly demonstrate that the Defendant’s indebtedness is not in dispute, and that the Defence and Counterclaim were filed in bad faith to frustrate or delay the Plaintiff’s recovery of the outstanding sum. DEFENDANT’S REPLY [14] The Defendant contended that the imposition of interest at the rate of 1.5% per month is contrary to the Financial Services Act 2013, and therefore unlawful. [15] The Defendant further stated that the letter dated 22 November 2024 sent to the Plaintiff did not amount to an admission of indebtedness, as it was a qualified correspondence seeking time to make payment and did not acknowledge the amount claimed as correct or due. [16] The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff ought to have filed a Summary Judgment application under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, instead of seeking to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim under Order 18 Rule 19. [17] The Defendant has maintained that there are triable issues that should be ventilated at a full trial, namely:

Whether the Defendant had in fact agreed to all the services allegedly provided by the Plaintiff;

Whether the Plaintiff had fully completed all the services rendered to the

Whether the Defendant owes the Plaintiff any balance payment as claimed;

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to impose interest at 1.5% per month, which the Defendant alleges is contrary to the provisions of the Financial Services Act 2013;

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount as a liquidated sum;

Whether the Plaintiff’s claim is legally valid, given that part of the claim allegedly includes interest on interest, which the Defendant contends is prohibited and estops the Plaintiff from doing so in law; and 5 | P a g e

Whether the Plaintiff had properly completed the repair works on the vessel “Sinar 2015”. THE LAW [18] Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 provides as follows: “Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O.18, r.19)

The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order to be struck out or amended any pleading or endorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that—

it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;

it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court; and the Court may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.” [19] The Supreme Court in Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v. United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 4 CLJ 7 (Ipoh) held as follows: “[1] The principles upon which the Court acts in exercising its power under any of the four limbs of O.18 r.19(1) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 are well settled. It is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under this rule. This summary procedure can only be adopted when it can be clearly seen that a claim or answer is, on the face of it, obviously unsustainable. [2] So long as the pleadings disclose some cause of action or raise some question fit to be decided by the Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed at trial is no ground for the pleadings to be struck out. 6 | P a g e

Whether the Defendant has a reasonable defence and the defendant’s counter claim disclose reasonable cause of action against the Plaintiff? (b )Whether the Defence and Counter claim are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;

Whether the Defence and Counter claim may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or

Whether the Defence and Counterclaim are otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court; CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES [20] The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are unsustainable and fall squarely within the grounds for striking out under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012. It was argued that the Defence contains mere denials and fails to raise any bona fide triable issue. The Plaintiff submitted that the documentary evidence, namely the invoices, payment slips, job completion reports, and statement of account exhibited in Exhibit “B” to the Supporting Affidavit, conclusively establishes the Defendant’s indebtedness of RM395,400.00. [19] The Plaintiff further contended that the Defendant’s Counterclaim is frivolous and devoid of particulars, as it contains only general allegations that the goods and services were incomplete or defective, without any supporting evidence. The Plaintiff emphasised that the Defendant’s letter dated 22 November 2024, requesting a two-month extension for payment, amounted to an admission of liability, and the subsequent denial of debt was an afterthought. [20] It was also submitted that the Defendant’s reliance on the Financial Services Act 2013 is misconceived, as the Plaintiff is not a financial institution but a commercial services provider. The interest clause of 1.5% per month was expressly stipulated in the invoices and accepted by the Defendant through its conduct. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendant’s reliance on this statute is an improper attempt to 7 | P a g e defeat a contractual obligation, rendering the Defence and Counterclaim an abuse of process. [21] The Defendant, in its written submissions (Encl. 17 and 21), argued that the application under Order 18 Rule 19 is misplaced and that the Plaintiff should have proceeded under Order 14 (Summary Judgment) if the claim was truly straightforward. The Defendant maintained that the Defence raises triable issues, including whether the Plaintiff had fully performed its obligations and whether the interest charged contravenes the Financial Services Act 2013. [22] The Defendant also contended that the Plaintiff’s exhibits are incomplete and inconsistent, and that the Statement of Account relied upon by the Plaintiff does not accurately reflect the transactions between the parties. The Defendant reiterated that some services were not completed, particularly in relation to the repair works on the vessel “Sinar 2015”, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the balance sum is premature. [23] In reply, the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant’s allegations are unsupported by evidence, as no documentary proof was tendered to show incomplete work or defective services. The Plaintiff also noted that the Defendant’s affidavit is replete with bare denials and does not specifically challenge the authenticity of the invoices, job completion reports, or the statement of account exhibited. The Plaintiff therefore urged the Court to exercise its discretion to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim as plainly unsustainable. COURT’S FINDINGS AND DECISION [24] Having carefully considered the affidavits, pleadings, and written submissions of both parties, this Court finds that the Defendant’s Defence consists of mere denials and fails to raise any bona fide triable issue. In particular, paragraph 4 of the Defence contains only a bare denial of liability without any particulars to support the allegation that the works were incomplete. Such a pleading, in the Court’s view, does not amount to a reasonable defence within the meaning of Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012. 8 | P a g e [25] This principle was clearly affirmed in Gazzriz Sdn Bhd v Sigma Elevator

(M) Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 2066, where the High Court held that a mere general denial or a statement putting the plaintiff to strict proof does not constitute a proper traverse and amounts only to a bare denial. The Court emphasized that pleadings must contain material facts sufficient to disclose a bona fide triable issue, failing which they are liable to be struck out. Applying this authority, the Defendant’s Defence in the present case is plainly unsustainable and devoid of substance. [26] The Court also finds that the Defendant’s Counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action. The relief sought for a declaration that the Plaintiff’s claim is contrary to the Financial Services Act 2013 is wholly without merit. The Plaintiff is a service provider, not a financial institution, and is therefore legally entitled to impose interest at the rate of 1.5% per month as stipulated in the invoices issued to the Defendant. The statutory provisions relied upon by the Defendant are inapplicable in this commercial context. [27] The evidence before the Court further demonstrates that the Defendant had, on several occasions, made payments in response to the invoices issued by the Plaintiff without raising any objection as to the interest imposed or the amount claimed. The Defendant only raised this issue after receiving the notice of demand dated 28 October 2024, followed by the letter dated 22 November 2024 requesting a two-month extension of time to make payment. Such conduct is inconsistent with the position now taken by the Defendant and reinforces the Court’s finding that the Defence was filed merely as an afterthought to delay the Plaintiff’s recovery of the outstanding sum. [28] The Court accepts the Plaintiff’s contention that the documents exhibited as Exhibit “B” to the Affidavit in Support, including the invoices, job completion reports, payment slips, and Statement of Account dated 4 December 2024, provide clear and undisputed evidence of the Defendant’s liability in the sum of RM395,400.00. The 9 | P a g e Defendant has produced no credible evidence to challenge the accuracy or authenticity of these documents. [29] It is also pertinent to note that in paragraph 3 of the Defendant’s Defence, the Defendant expressly admitted that it had accepted the services rendered by the Plaintiff. This admission, read together with the documentary evidence exhibited by the Plaintiff, further supports the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant’s liability is not genuinely disputed. [30] The Defendant has contended that the Plaintiff ought to have proceeded by way of a Summary Judgment application under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 instead of seeking to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim under Order 18 Rule

This Court does not agree. The two procedures serve distinct purposes — Order 14 applies where the claim is straightforward and supported by affidavit evidence, whereas Order 18 Rule 19 is properly invoked where the Defence discloses no reasonable defence, is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. The Plaintiff is entitled to elect the latter procedure when it is apparent from the pleadings that the Defence is unsustainable on its face. [31] This position finds support in Penang Shipbuilding Corp Sdn Bhd v Mashaha Holdings Sdn Bhd [1986] CLJ (Rep) 575, where Mohamed Dzaiddin J held that the Court may, upon finding that the Defence consists of bare denials and discloses no reasonable defence, strike out the Defence under Order 18 rule 19 and enter final judgment for the Plaintiff. His Lordship emphasized that the striking-out procedure is appropriate when the pleadings and affidavits themselves are sufficient to show that no bona fide triable issue exists. Applying that principle to the present case, this Court finds that the Plaintiff has rightly proceeded under Order 18 rule 19, as the Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are plainly unsustainable and amount to an abuse of process. Hence, the Plaintiff is entitled to enter final judgment in such circumstances. 10 | P a g e CONCLUSIONS [32] For these reasons, the Plaintiff’s application under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(a),

(b), (c), and (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 is allowed. The Defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim are struck out in their entirety. The Plaintiff’s application in encl.11 is allowed with the cost of RM3,000.00. Dated: 20th October 2025 zarifah ……………………………. Zarifah Binti Zainal Abidin, Sessions Court Judge. Klang, Selangor