SENA TRAFFIC SYSTEMS SDN. BHD. v 1. ) AR-RIFQI SDN. BHD. 2. ) ZAIMIL AZHAR BIN ZAINAL 3. ) ITMAX SYSTEMS SDN BHD 4. ) Tan Sri Tan Boon Hock 5. ) Sharifah Maizura Binti Syed Mohamad Rithuan 6. ) RONY ZHANG 7. ) ZHANG ZIYANG 8. ) SENA TRAFFIC SYSTEM SDN BHD

ba-22ncc-118-06-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 25 November 2025 • BA-22NCC-118-06/2025 • 9 min read
6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Outcome

Sri Tan Boon Hock is struck out in its entirety with costs of RM1000.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (ba-22ncc-118-06-2025). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Commercial debt — Supply of telecommunications equipment — Unpaid invoices — Clear documentary evidence — Purchase orders, delivery orders and invoices — Defence alleging coercion and additional agreement — No contemporaneous protest or supporting documents — Bare assertions — Afterthought — No bona fide triable issue — Summary judgment allowed — Rules of Court 2012, O.14 Contract — Guarantee — Letter of guarantee — Personal liability of guarantor — Guarantor admitting signature — Defence of misunderstanding and failure to read document — No fraud, misrepresentation or duress — Party bound by document signed — No triable issue — Summary judgment against guarantor — L’Estrange v Graucob applied Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Counterclaim — Striking out — Allegation of commercial conspiracy — Failure to plead essential elements — No agreement, no common design, no overt acts, no particulars of damage — Pleadings vague and speculative — No reasonable cause of action — Frivolous and vexatious — Abuse of process — Counterclaim struck out — Rules of Court 2012, O.18 r.19 Company Law — Separate legal personality — Third parties — Alleged conspirators not party to contract or alleged additional agreement — No factual nexus pleaded — Improper joinder — Counterclaim unsustainable Evidence — Burden of proof — Allegations of coercion and conspiracy — Absence of contemporaneous documents — No protest, complaint or corroborative evidence — Allegations rejected Practice and Procedure — Consolidated determination — Summary judgment and striking-out applications — Efficient disposal — Counterclaim dismissed consequent upon summary judgment

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Contract

Judges (1)

Asmah binti Musa Delivered

Counsel (5)

Amar Syiimir Izzat & Sham Firm PC Choong & Company Firm Eugene K.Y Choong Counsel Plaintiff Kho Yan Yee Counsel Plaintiff Muhammad Nor Izzat Nordin Counsel Defendant

Parties (9)

AR-RIFQI Sdn Bhd Defendant ITMAX SYSTEMS Sdn Bhd Defendant SENA TRAFFIC SYSTEM Sdn Bhd Defendant SENA TRAFFIC SYSTEMS Sdn Bhd Plaintiff Rony Zhang Defendant Sharifah Maizura binti Syed Mohamad Rithuan Defendant Tan Sri Tan Boon Hock Defendant Zaimil Azhar bin Zainal Defendant Zhang Ziyang Defendant

Case Significance

A summary judgment on a documented telecommunications-equipment debt and a signed guarantee, with a coercion defence rejected as a bare afterthought and the counterclaim struck out and dismissed.

This High Court decision resolves a cluster of interlocutory applications in a commercial-debt action arising from the supply of telecommunications equipment. The plaintiff supplier sued for the price of equipment delivered but unpaid, relying on a clear documentary record of purchase orders, delivery orders and invoices, and it sought summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. Related applications sought summary judgment against the second defendant as guarantor under a Letter of Guarantee he had executed, and applications by the third and fourth defendants to strike out a counterclaim brought against them. Given the substantial factual and legal overlap, the Court disposed of the applications together.

On the debt, the defence asserted that the plaintiff had procured the orders by coercion and that there was an additional oral agreement. The Court found these assertions unpersuasive: there was no contemporaneous protest and no supporting documentation, so the defence amounted to bare assertion raised as an afterthought and disclosed no bona fide triable issue. Summary judgment on the debt was therefore appropriate. On the guarantee, the second defendant admitted his signature but pleaded misunderstanding and a failure to read the document; absent any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, that did not displace his personal liability as guarantor, a person of business being bound by a document he has signed.

Turning to the counterclaim, the Court struck out the counterclaim against the fourth defendant in its entirety with costs of RM1,000, and, in consequence of its findings, dismissed the counterclaim in its entirety. The judgment is a useful illustration of when a documented commercial debt, unanswered by any genuine dispute, will be entered summarily rather than tried, of the limited weight of a "did not read the document" defence to a guarantee absent fraud or misrepresentation, and of the disposal of overlapping summary-judgment and strike-out applications in a single hearing.

Why did the Court enter summary judgment on the debt and guarantee?

The documented debt for supplied telecommunications equipment was met only by bare, unsupported assertions of coercion and an additional agreement raised as an afterthought, disclosing no triable issue; and the guarantor, who admitted his signature, could not escape personal liability by pleading he misunderstood or did not read the guarantee absent any fraud or misrepresentation.

What happened to the counterclaim?

The Court struck out the counterclaim against the fourth defendant in its entirety with costs of RM1,000 and, consequent on its findings, dismissed the counterclaim in its entirety.

Cases Cited (6)

UK (1)
[1934] 2 KB 394
MY (5)
[1992] 1 MLJ 400 [2012] 7 MLJ 754 [2012] 7 MLJ 840 [2015] 6 MLJ 810 [2025] 6 MLJ 106

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-22ncc-118-06-2025)