Maybank Islamic Berhad v 1. ) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN AHMAD @ MOHAMMED 2. ) KHADIJAH BINTI FADZLI 3. ) AHMAD ZAKUAN BIN BAHAUDDIN

ba-22m-234-10-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 20 November 2025 • BA-22M-234-10/2023

Catchwords

Banking—Guarantee and indemnity—Enforcement—Summary judgment—Order 14 Rules of Court 2012—Guarantor’s liability—Joint and several liability for banking facilities—Whether bona fide triable issues raised—Defence alleging duty on bank to monitor borrower’s financial position and to act in guarantor’s interest—Whether such duty existed—Express terms of facility and guarantee negating any supervisory duty—Effect of variations, indulgences and restructuring granted to principal borrower—Purview doctrine—Whether applicable—Alleged delay in realisation of securities—Section 94 Contracts Act 1950—Whether impairment or loss of security established—Mere allegation of delay insufficient—Certificate of Indebtedness—Whether challenge raised with particulars or evidence of manifest error—Bare assertion inadequate—Civil procedure—Striking out—Counterclaim repeating unsustainable defences—Whether discloses reasonable cause of action—Abuse of process—Further and better particulars—Function of particulars confined to material facts—No prejudice shown—Statement of claim sufficient—Summary judgment allowed—Counterclaim struck out—Application for particulars dismissed—Costs of RM20,000 awarded for all three applications.

Practice Areas

Banking—Guarantee and indemnity—Enforcement—Summary judgment—Order 14 Rules of Court 2012—Guarantor’s liability—Joint and several liability for banking facilities—Whether bona fide triable issues raised—Defence alleging duty on bank to monitor borrower’s financial position and to act in guarantor’s interest—Whether such duty existed—Express terms of facility and guarantee negating any supervisory duty—Effect of variations, indulgences and restructuring granted to principal borrower—Purview doctrine—Whether applicable—Alleged delay in realisation of securities—Section 94 Contracts Act 1950—Whether impairment or loss of security established—Mere allegation of delay insufficient—Certificate of Indebtedness—Whether challenge raised with particulars or evidence of manifest error—Bare assertion inadequate—Civil procedure—Striking out—Counterclaim repeating unsustainable defences—Whether discloses reasonable cause of action—Abuse of process—Further and better particulars—Function of particulars confined to material facts—No prejudice shown—Statement of claim sufficient—Summary judgment allowed—Counterclaim struck out—Application for particulars dismissed—Costs of RM20,000 awarded for all three applications.

Judges (1)

Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran Delivered

Parties (4)

MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD Plaintiff Ahmad Zakuan bin Bahauddin Defendant Khadijah binti Fadzli Defendant Mohamad Faisal bin Ahmad @ Mohammed Defendant

Case Significance

Maybank Islamic Berhad v 1. ) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN AHMAD @ MOHAMMED 2. ) KHADIJ... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated November 20, 2025 (citation: ba-22m-234-10-2023). The case was decided by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran.

What was the outcome of Maybank Islamic Berhad v 1. ) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN AHMAD @ MOHAMMED 2. ) KHADIJ...?

Maybank Islamic Berhad v 1. ) MOHAMAD FAISAL BIN AHMAD @ MOHAMMED 2. ) KHADIJ... is a High Court decision dated November 20, 2025. The case was heard by Raja Rozela binti Raja Toran. See the full judgment for details.