Hong Leong Bank Berhad v 1. ) United Jaya Sdn. Bhd (WA-22NCC-91-02/2024)

UNITED JAYA SDN. BHD. (No. Syarikat: 201201003196/976721-T)

LIM CHEE CHOW (No. K/P: 800910-05-5357)

TEOH JUN AIK (No. K/P: 791219-07-5669)

TAN LAI HEE (No. K/P: 800912-07-5167)

TEOH SAY ENG … DEFENDAN - (No. K/P: 630113-07-5428) DEFENDAN S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 2 of 10 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT (Enclosure 8)

This is the Plaintiff’s application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 (Enclosure 8) (“this Application”).

Having heard submissions and considered the affidavits, pleadings, and authorities, I allowed this Application and entered judgment for the Plaintiff. These are my reasons. A]

The Plaintiff, Hong Leong Bank Berhad, is a licensed financial institution.

The 1st Defendant, United Jaya Sdn Bhd, is the borrower. The 2nd to 5th Defendants are the Guarantors under a Letter of Guarantee dated 8.5.2019.

The Plaintiff granted facilities totalling RM12,500,000.00

14.7.2020, 8.12.2020, and 7.9.2023) and a Facilities Agreement dated 5.4.2018.

The 1st Defendant defaulted in repayment. A Letter of Demand was issued on 5.12.2023, followed by a Notice of Recall and S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 3 of 10 Termination on 4.1.2024 and a Demand to the Guarantors on 16.1.2024. No payment was made. B]

The Plaintiff contends that the Defence comprises bare denials unsupported by evidence.

While the Plaintiff concedes that a payment holiday was granted under the Letter of Offer dated 7.9.2023, it was revoked by a subsequent letter dated 27.9.2023 (“the Revocation Letter”) due to the 1st Defendant’s non-fulfilment of conditions. The Revocation Letter was sent by registered post to the 1st Defendant’s business address and deemed served under s. 4.03(c) of the Facilities Agreement.

The Defendants did not challenge the correctness of the Certificate of Indebtedness or any of the demand letters contemporaneously, and their silence amounts to acceptance and estoppel (Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank Berhad [1995] 3 MLJ 331; section 115 Evidence Act 1950). C]

The Defendants argue that the payment holiday granted from 1.10.2023 to 31.12.2023 remained operative, and thus there S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 4 of 10 was no default when the Letter of Demand was issued on 5.12.2023.

They further contend that the 1st Defendant had no knowledge of the Revocation Letter dated 27.9.2023, which they only became aware of upon the Plaintiff’s Reply to Defence. This, they say, raises a serious triable issue. D]

The Certificate of Indebtedness dated 8.4.2024 clearly sets out the sums owing. The Defendants did not challenge its accuracy in their Defence or affidavit. Following Malayan Banking Bhd v. Boo Hock Soon @ Boo Choo Soon [2013] 2 MLJ 843, such a certificate is conclusive proof of indebtedness.

The Court of Appeal in Boo Hock Soon (supra) held as follows: [35] Be that as it may, the defendant guarantor ought not to be allowed to challenge the correctness of the certificate of indebtedness because the defendant guarantor has not alluded to this in any of his affidavits in reply nor as there any averment that there were manifest errors in the said certificate. A submission from the bar on this very crucial issue will not be entertained by this court (Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281; [1995] 1 CLJ 609 S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 5 of 10 (CA); and Abdul Razak Ahmad v Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru [1995] 2 MLJ 287; [1995] 2AMR 1174; [1995] 4 CLJ 339 (HC)). (own emphasis added) E] REVOCATION OF PAYMENT HOLIDAY AND SERVICE OF

The Plaintiff, in its Reply to Defence (Enclosure 10), pleaded that the payment holiday was revoked by the Revocation Letter (letter dated 27.9.2023). The Defendants had notice of this pleading but never alleged in their Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 7) that they did not receive the Revocation Letter.

The issue of non-receipt was raised for the first time only in the Defendants’ sole written submissions (Enclosure 13), without any supporting affidavit. It therefore amounts to a submission from the bar (Boo Hock Soon (supra)).

The Revocation Letter dated 27.9.2023 was sent by registered post to the 1st Defendant’s business address and, under s.

4.03(c) of the Facilities Agreement, is deemed served by the second business day after posting. The Defendants produced no evidence to the contrary to show that the letter was not delivered. A bare denial is insufficient (Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v. Chong Chin Shoong [1997] MLJU 264). S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 6 of 10 F]

The Defendants’ contention of non-receipt was never pleaded or verified by affidavit. It was raised only in written submissions (Enclosure 13).

Following Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 609 and Ng Chee Meng v. Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA [2021] MLJU 1808, such submissions from the bar cannot be entertained.

The raising of this issue at such a late stage, without affidavit, supports the inference that it was an afterthought. G]

The Defendants received the Plaintiff’s demand letters dated 5.12.2023, 4.1.2024, and 16.1.2024 but did not respond or protest on grounds of any existing payment holiday. Their silence amounts to estoppel by conduct (section 115 Evidence Act 1950; Caltex Oil (Malaysia) Ltd v. Classic Best Sdn Bhd & Ors [2007] 4 MLJ 772).

Even taking the Defendants’ case at its highest, no payment was made even after 31.12.2023. Hence, the default is undeniable, and the continued omission confirms that there is no genuine defence. S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w

Applying Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400, assertions inconsistent with undisputed documents do not raise triable issues. The Defendants’ case rests solely on bare denial and a factual contention unsupported by affidavit evidence. H]

The Guarantors’ liability under the Letter of Guarantee dated 8.5.2019 is co-extensive with the 1st Defendant’s liability. Having found the 1st Defendant in default, the same conclusion applies to the Guarantors. I]

The Plaintiff’s claim rests on clear and undisputed documents - the Facilities Agreement, Letters of Offer, Guarantee, Revocation Letter, demand letters, and Certificate of Indebtedness. These contemporaneous documents clearly establish liability. This case falls squarely within the principle in Koh Siak Poo v. Perkayuan OKS Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 164 and Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Yin [2006] 2 MLJ 685 that summary judgment is appropriate where no bona fide defence is shown. S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w

For the reasons stated above, I allowed this Application and entered summary judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendants with costs. Dated this 21st day of October, 2025 -SGD- (WAN MUHAMMAD AMIN BIN WAN YAHYA) JUDGE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA, (COMMERCIAL DIVISION (NCC 3)) HIGH COURT OF KUALA LUMPUR IN THE FEDERAL TERRITORY, MALAYSIA COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF : Koo Yin Soon (Koo Jia You together with him) Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co. Tingkat 7, Wisma Hamzah Kwong Hing, No. 1, Leboh Ampang, 50100 Kuala Lumpur Tel: 03-20272842 Email: info@shearndelamore.com S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w Page 9 of 10 COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS : Ng Li Kian Messrs Ng, Gan & Partners D6-6-7, Bangunan Perdagangan D6, 801, Jalan Sentul, 51000 Kuala Lumpur Tel: 03-27700368 / 016-9965726 / 017-6807080 Email: likian.co@gmail.com LEGISLATION / RULES CITED Rules of Court 2012 ▪ Order 14 Evidence Act 1950 ▪ Section 115

Arab-Malaysian Finance Bhd v. Chong Chin Shoong [1997]

Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Arab Malaysian Merchant

Banking Bhd v. Boo Hock Soon @ Boo Choo Soon [2013] 2 MLJ 843

Bank Negara Malaysia v. Mohd Ismail & Ors [1992] 1 MLJ 400

Caltex Oil (Malaysia) Ltd v. Classic Best Sdn Bhd & Ors [2007] 4 MLJ 772 S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w

Cempaka Finance Bhd v. Ho Lai Yin [2006] 2 MLJ 685

Koh Siak Poo v. Perkayuan OKS Sdn Bhd [1989] 3 MLJ 164

Ng Hee Thoong & Anor v. Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 609

Ng Chee Meng v. Wynn Resorts (Macau) SA [2021] MLJU 1808 S/N b0uoeBuKb0yhhNwaShv10w