Ocbc Bank (Malaysia) Berhad v Cstme Resources Sdn Bhd (WA-22NCC-697-09/2023)

High Court of Malaysia6 Nov 2025

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

Text not available yet

We have this decision's details, but the judgment text is not available yet.

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Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.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: 6 Nov 2025
Case number: WA-22NCC-697-09/2023
Coram: YA Dato' Indera Mohd Arief Emran Bin Arifin
Practice area: Banking Facilities – Overdraft, Invoice Financing, and Structured Trade Line facilities. Guarantee and Indemnity – Liability of directors as joint and several principal debtors rather than mere sureties – Liability of Guarantors as Principal Debtors – Determining if variations to the principal debt (such as extensions of time or interest rate changes) discharge guarantors under Section 86 of the Contracts Act 1950, particularly where the guarantee instrument defines the guarantor as a "principal debtor" Event of Default – Failure to pay outstanding sums on demand and non-compliance with redemption terms – Covid-19 and "Premature" Recalls – Whether the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent government-suggested moratoriums provide a legal excuse for default or render a bank's legal action "premature" and in mala fides. Repayment Assistance Programme – Moratorium and extension of trade bill maturity dates provided due to the Covid-19 pandemic – The Finality of the Repayment Assistance Programme – Whether the extension of maturity dates for trade bills under a Repayment Assistance Programme creates a fresh contractual timeline that precludes a bank from recalling facilities until the new dates have fully lapsed. Promissory Estoppel – The defense that the bank is barred from legal action due to alleged oral assurances given during negotiations - Oral Assurances vs. Written Agreements (Promissory Estoppel) – To what extent can oral assurances given by bank officers (e.g., promises not to sue during negotiations) estop a financial institution from enforcing its rights under clear, written facility agreements and "on demand" clauses. Compensation Sum/Charge: Unlawful imposition of charges not stipulated in the primary facility agreements – Validity of "Compensation Charges" Outside Contractual Terms – Whether a bank may lawfully impose a "compensation charge" or "compensation sum" as a condition for granting an extension of time when such charges are not expressly provided for in the original Letters of Offer or Facility Agreements
Version: Alasan Penghakiman 1
Published: 9 Dec 2025
Source ID: ebae0d38-7391-4b61-8944-64538033ef84

Catchwords

Banking Facilities – Overdraft, Invoice Financing, and Structured Trade Line facilities. Guarantee and Indemnity – Liability of directors as joint and several principal debtors rather than mere sureties – Liability of Guarantors as Principal Debtors – Determining if variations to the principal debt (such as extensions of time or interest rate changes) discharge guarantors under Section 86 of the Contracts Act 1950, particularly where the guarantee instrument defines the guarantor as a "principal debtor" Event of Default – Failure to pay outstanding sums on demand and non-compliance with redemption terms – Covid-19 and "Premature" Recalls – Whether the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and subsequent government-suggested moratoriums provide a legal excuse for default or render a bank's legal action "premature" and in mala fides. Repayment Assistance Programme – Moratorium and extension of trade bill maturity dates provided due to the Covid-19 pandemic – The Finality of the Repayment Assistance Programme – Whether the extension of maturity dates for trade bills under a Repayment Assistance Programme creates a fresh contractual timeline that precludes a bank from recalling facilities until the new dates have fully lapsed. Promissory Estoppel – The defense that the bank is barred from legal action due to alleged oral assurances given during negotiations - Oral Assurances vs. Written Agreements (Promissory Estoppel) – To what extent can oral assurances given by bank officers (e.g., promises not to sue during negotiations) estop a financial institution from enforcing its rights under clear, written facility agreements and "on demand" clauses. Compensation Sum/Charge: Unlawful imposition of charges not stipulated in the primary facility agreements – Validity of "Compensation Charges" Outside Contractual Terms – Whether a bank may lawfully impose a "compensation charge" or "compensation sum" as a condition for granting an extension of time when such charges are not expressly provided for in the original Letters of Offer or Facility Agreements

Parties

OCBC BANK (MALAYSIA) BERHAD - plaintiff - ejudgment_parties
1. ) CSTME RESOURCES SDN BHD - defendant - ejudgment_parties
2. ) ALBERT TAN YEAN HEONG - defendant - ejudgment_parties
3. ) WAN AHMAD KAMAL BIN MOHD RASDI - defendant - ejudgment_parties

Primary source

Compare this reader text against the official judgment source.

Open source PDF

Catchwords