IVMI submits that this chronology is telling. KTL remained silent when the invoices were issued, when reminders were sent and when demands were made. IVMI emphasises that the complaints were only raised belatedly in reaction to Encl 1. Silence and long periods of inactivity on the part of the debtor is inconsistent with a bona fide dispute. In KGN Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pan Reliance Sdn Bhd [1996] 1 MLJ 233, the Court of Appeal (albeit in the context of finding a triable issue in summary judgment proceedings) held as follows: “The appellant remained silent, held onto the accounts, and did nothing about it. The denial by its solicitor’s letter of 4 January 1993, came long after the delivery of the account. When asked why his client had kept silent for a rather long period of time, Encik Darshan Singh’s response was that his client was a large company and did not do anything until the letter before action was received. We trust that we will be forgiven if we are unable to detect the logic in this response. We are of the view that it would be a travesty of justice if we were to accede to the appellant’s arguments.”