Sr Technics Switzerland Ltd v World Cargo Airline Sdn. Bhd. (BA-22NCvC-181-05/2025)

WORLD CARGO AIRLINE SDN. BHD. [Company Registration No.: 199301014098 (268838-h)]

ASIA CARGO NETWORK SDN. BHD [Company Registration No.: 201101029350 (957485-M)] ... DEFENDANTS 19/01/2026 11:05:34 BA-22NCvC-181-05/2025 Kand. 53 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

This is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Application (Enclosure 10) for summary judgment under Order 14 rules 1 and 3 of the Rules of Court 2012 against both the Defendants jointly and severally.

The Plaintiff’s claim arises from aircraft maintenance services rendered to the 1st Defendant in respect of CFM56-7B Engine ESN 877378 (“the Engine”), pursuant to an agreement dated 7 December 2021 titled “Offer for the Performance of Maintenance Services” (“the Main Agreement”).

The Main Agreement incorporated the General Conditions of Business for Engine Services (“GCBES”). The parties’ documentary record shows invoicing upon performance, payment terms, late-payment interest, and engine storage charges where redelivery was delayed.

Between 23 December 2021 and 3 November 2022, the Plaintiff issued nine (9) invoices totalling USD 2,927,075.81. The invoices were not disputed as to services rendered or amounts charged. As at 18 August 2022, after crediting payments made, an outstanding balance of USD 1,397,075.81 remained unpaid.

Due to payment difficulties, the parties entered into a negotiated settlement structure recorded in a Side Letter dated 11 November 2022 (“the Side Letter”). The Side Letter consolidated the agreed figures (principal outstanding, agreed late-payment interest components, and storage charges), reduced the applicable late-payment interest rate to 7.25% per annum, and restructured payment by instalments. Side Letter instalment plan and agreed figures Due date

1.

21.10.2022 First instalment 250,000.00 2.

31.10.2022 Second instalment 250,000.00 3.

30.11.2022 Third instalment + interest (Nov 2022: 3,021.00) 253,021.00 4.

20.12.2022 Fourth instalment + interest (Dec 2022: 4,028.00) + storage (40,000.00) 294,028.00 5.

31.01.2023 Fifth instalment + interest (Jan 2023: 4,833.00) 204,833.00 6.

28.02.2023 Sixth instalment + interest (Feb 2023: 6,042.00) 206,042.00 7.

31.03.2023 Seventh instalment + interest (Mar 2023: 8,956.00) 256,031.81 Total instalment payment under Side Letter 1,713,955.81

The Defendants accept that the Side Letter exists and that substantial payments were made pursuant to it. The documentary record further shows repeated reminders and the Defendants’ requests for time and indulgence to pay.

The Plaintiff’s case is not advanced on a bare assertion. It is supported by invoices, payment proofs (bank credit advices), an updated reconciliation, and contemporaneous correspondence, including the email thread evidencing the negotiation of the Side Letter and the subsequent payment and default history. Payments made (credited) Payment Date Description (by reference to

1.

25.10.2022 Payment of First instalment 250,000.00 2.

09.11.2022 Payment of Second instalment 250,000.00 3.

15.12.2022 Payment of Third instalment + interest (Nov 2022: 3,021.00) 253,021.00 4.

27.12.2022 Payment of Fourth instalment + interest + storage fee 294,028.00 Payment Date Description (by reference to

5.

09.03.2023 Payment of Fifth instalment + interest (Jan 2023: 4,833.00) 204,833.00 6.

08.05.2023 Part-payment towards Sixth instalment (principal portion) 100,000.00 Total paid as at 16.04.2024 1,351,882.00

In 2024, following further demands, the Defendants proposed new instalment arrangements. Three further part payments totalling USD 50,000.00 were made: USD 30,000.00 (20 May 2024), USD 10,000.00 (28 June 2024), and USD 10,000.00 (20 August 2024). The Plaintiff credited these payments.

The Plaintiff’s claim at the date of filing the writ (09 May 2025) is for the outstanding settlement sum and accrued late-payment interest calculated at 7.25% per annum under the Side Letter framework, taking into account the timing of payments. Computation of outstanding principal and outstanding settlement sum Description Amount Outstanding principal as at 16.04.2024 (per Plaintiff’s demand computation) 347,075.81 Description Amount Less: part payments received in 2024 (30,000 + 10,000 + 10,000) 50,000.00 Net outstanding principal as at 09.05.2025 297,075.81 Add: predetermined late-payment interest for 6th and 7th instalments (6,042.00 + 8,956.00) 14,998.00 Outstanding Settlement Sum claimed 312,073.81

200,000.00 01.03.2023-

31.03.2023 USD 200,000.00 x 7.25% x 31/360 1,248.61 2. 447,075.81 01.04.2023-

07.05.2023 447,075.81 x 7.25% x 37/360 3,331.34 3. 347,075.81 08.05.2023-

19.05.2024 347,075.81 x 7.25% x 378/360 26,421.15 4. 317,075.81 09.05.2024-

27.06.2024 317,075.81 x 7.25% x 39/360 2,490.37 5. 307,075.81 28.06.2024-

19.08.2024 307,075.81 x 7.25% x 53/360 3,277.61 6. 297,075.81 20.08.2024-

09.05.2025 297,075.81 x 7.25% x 263/360 15,734.70 Total accrued late-payment interest 52,503.78

I accept the Plaintiff’s computation. The computation is transparent and ties each interest tranche to the principal outstanding at the time, which steps down with each part payment. A minor typographical correction identified in reply (as to the stated start date of one tranche) does not affect the number of days used or the resulting figure, and does not affect the total.

The Plaintiff submits that: a. The Defendants are indebted for the outstanding settlement sum of USD 312,073.81 and accrued late-payment interest of USD 52,503.78, together with further interest as prayed; b. The Side Letter and Letter of Undertaking bind the Defendants; c. The Defendants have admitted liability by conduct and correspondence; and d. No bona fide triable issue arises.

The Defendants resist the application on, inter alia, the following grounds: a. The Zurich exclusive jurisdiction/Swiss law clause; b. that the settlement sum is misconstrued and allegedly overstated (including assertions of an uncredited USD 195,000.00 and an alleged USD 250,000.00 “excess”); c. that the true contested amount is only USD 62,073.81; d. that correspondence is “without prejudice” and inadmissible; e. that the 2nd Defendant’s liability is limited to “balance payment” and/or is discharged under section 86 of the Contracts Act 1950; and f. that the late-payment interest computation is said to be questionable.

Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 empowers the Court to enter summary judgment where the defendant has no defence to the claim or has no defence except as to quantum, unless the defendant satisfies the Court that there is an issue or question in dispute which ought to be tried or some other reason for trial.

The Court must examine the defence raised in affidavit and submissions critically. Bare assertions, speculative arithmetic, or afterthought allegations unsupported by primary documents do not amount to a bona fide triable issue.

I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has established a clear case and the liquidated claim is supported by documentary evidence: the Main Agreement and GCBES, the undisputed invoices, the Side Letter with a defined payment plan and reduced interest rate, the Letter of Undertaking, bank credit advices confirming payments received, and a reconciliation of the outstanding sums.

Quantum and payment history can be summarised as follows: a. The Plaintiff’s case on quantum is set out in the Affidavit in Support (Enclosure 10) and clarified and consolidated in the Affidavit in Rebuttal (Enclosure 18). b. Based on Enclosure 18, the Plaintiff’s evidence establishes the following:

The Defendants admitted the full Initial Invoiced Amount and the unpaid balance of USD 1,397,075.81 as at 18 August 2022;

(ii) The parties thereafter mutually agreed to a final settlement sum of USD 1,713,955.81, as reflected in the Side Letter;

(iii) The Defendants made multiple part-payments, all of which have been credited by the Plaintiff; and

(iv) The Defendants contend that they “only paid USD 1,335,000.00” and further allege an additional payment of USD 195,000.00.

The Plaintiff expressly addresses the alleged USD 195,000.00 payment in Enclosure 18 and challenges it as a bare assertion unsupported by any documentary proof such as bank remittance advice, ledger entry, or acknowledgment.

Importantly, the Defendants do not exhibit any competing statement of account, reconciliation, or documentary computation showing that the Plaintiff’s final balance is incorrect.

Defendants’ affidavit position is as follows: a. In the Affidavit in Reply (Enclosure 15), the Defendants admit that part-payments were made. They do not deny the invoices, the services rendered, or the existence of the Side Letter. b. The Defendants’ resistance is premised on dissatisfaction with the Plaintiff’s computation of the balance, but their affidavit does not advance a positive evidential case on quantum.

The Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Rebuttal (Enclosure 18) directly answers this by confirming that all payments received have been credited and that the balance claimed is the net outstanding sum.

On the Zurich jurisdiction objection: The Defendants contend that this Court lacks jurisdiction because Clause 24.1 of the GCBES provides for Swiss governing law and that disputes shall be brought before the competent courts of the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. However, the Court is of the following views: a. The Defendants entered appearance and filed their Defence and other cause papers without applying for a stay under Order 12 rule 10(2) of the Rules of Court 2012. They have therefore, taken steps in the proceedings and submitted to this Court’s jurisdiction. b. In any event, both the Defendants are Malaysian companies and the dispute concerns non-payment by Malaysian Defendants; this Court has legal jurisdiction and Malaysia is forum conveniens. c. While foreign jurisdiction clauses are recognised as expressions of party autonomy, they are not absolute and do not automatically oust the jurisdiction of this Court. d. The Defendants have actively participated in these proceedings, including filing affidavits and written submissions on the merits. The jurisdiction objection is raised defensively, without any corresponding application to stay or strike out the proceedings on that ground. e. On the material before me, such conduct is inconsistent with a genuine insistence on exclusive foreign jurisdiction and amounts to submission to the jurisdiction of this Court and/or waiver of reliance on the clause for present purposes. f. Further, this is an application under Order 14. A jurisdiction objection, to defeat summary judgment, must itself be shown to be real, arguable, and properly grounded. A bare assertion of a foreign jurisdiction clause, without procedural follow-through or evidential development, does not constitute a bona fide triable issue. g. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the jurisdiction objection was arguable, it does not engage with the core evidential findings on quantum. The Plaintiff has established a reconciled outstanding balance after crediting all proven part-payments, and the Defendants have not produced any competing reconciliation.

Taking into account the discretionary nature of foreign jurisdiction clauses, the Defendants’ conduct amounting to submission, the absence of a proper stay application, and the Order 14 context, I am satisfied that the jurisdiction objection does not bar the present proceedings.

On the alleged miscalculation (USD 195,000.00/USD 250,000.00) and the “USD 62,073.81 only” contention: These are arithmetical assertions not supported by primary documentary proof of additional payments or any coherent counter-reconciliation. The Plaintiff’s reconciliation is transparent and supported by bank credit advices. A mere tabulation of numbers without proof does not raise a triable issue.

On the Side Letter: The documentary record shows lengthy negotiations and execution of the Side Letter. The Defendants performed it by making substantial payments. Allegations of economic duress/unjust enrichment were not raised contemporaneously and are contradicted by the negotiation history and subsequent conduct. The Side Letter is binding.

On the 2nd Defendant’s liability: The Letter of Undertaking and the 2nd Defendant’s conduct (including making payments on behalf of the 1st Defendant) demonstrate that the 2nd Defendant’s obligation subsists. No concluded variation discharging the surety under section 86 of the Contracts Act 1950 is established on evidence.

On admissibility of correspondence: The communications relied upon are directed at repayment of an admitted liability (requests for time, instalment proposals) rather than compromise of a genuinely disputed liability. The “without prejudice” label is not conclusive. On the substance, these documents support admission by conduct and do not create a triable issue.

On interest: The Plaintiff’s accrued late-payment interest computation at 7.25% per annum is clearly set out and tied to the principal outstanding at each period. The Defendants have not produced any competing computation grounded in the Side Letter framework. The interest claim is therefore supported and not merely asserted.

The Plaintiff has produced a coherent reconciliation showing invoices issued, payments received, and a final balance derived after crediting all proven part-payments. This is not a case where the Plaintiff ignores payments. On the contrary, the Plaintiff’s own case accepts and accounts for them.

The Defendants’ reliance on the fact that many part-payments were made does not, by itself, create a triable issue. What matters is whether the Defendants have shown, on evidence, that the final balance stated by the Plaintiff is wrong. They have failed to do so. The alleged additional USD 195,000.00 payment is unsupported by any documentary proof. In a commercial dispute of this nature, such proof would reasonably be expected if the payment had in fact been made.

What remains is therefore not a factual dispute requiring trial, but a bare disagreement with arithmetic unsupported by evidence. That is precisely the type of defence which Order 14 is designed to filter out.

For these reasons, I allowed the Plaintiff’s application and entered summary judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for: a. USD 312,073.81 (Outstanding Settlement Sum); b. USD 52,503.78 (accrued late-payment interest from 01 March 2023 to 09 May 2025); c. Further late-payment interest at 7.25% per annum (daily rate) from 10 May 2025 until the date of judgment; d. Post-judgment interest at 5% per annum until full settlement; e. Costs of the summary judgment application at RM5000. Dated 19 January 2026 -sgd-DATO’ ANITA BINTI HARUN JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER HIGH COURT OF MALAYA SHAH ALAM SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN To the parties’ solicitors: For the Plaintiff : Teh I Vern & Nurul Arlene Aqila binti Zunizam (Messrs L Y Lu & Co.) For the Defendants : Azam Rashid, Ainul Azwan & Afiq Hakimi (Messrs Ainul Azirahman & Co.)