Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd v 1. ) Pestech Energy Sdn Bhd 2. ) Pestech International Berhad

Case Significance

Illustrates the summary disposal under Order 14 of a documented commercial debt for goods and services rendered where the defence discloses no bona fide triable issue, with a corporate guarantor held liable under its guarantees.

This decision of the High Court of Malaya at Shah Alam concerns an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a commercial debt claim. The plaintiff, Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd, sued the first defendant, Pestech Energy Sdn Bhd, for the unpaid balance for goods and services rendered — a principal sum of RM14,370,844.31 together with accrued late-payment interest of RM1,744,258.66 and continuing interest at 1% per month on the outstanding invoices — and sued the second defendant, Pestech International Berhad, under corporate guarantees. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment against both defendants, and the questions for the court were whether the outstanding balance had been proved, whether the affidavit evidence was sufficient for a final judgment, and whether the issues the defendants raised required the calling of oral evidence at trial.

The court examined the affidavit evidence and the documents exhibited, including the invoices and the parties' correspondence, and considered the settled principles governing summary judgment and judgment on admissions. It noted that under the analogous jurisdiction to enter judgment on admissions (Order 27 Rule 3), the words "or otherwise" are of general application, so that a judgment may be entered where an admission is made not only in a pleading but by letter or other documents or agreements that clearly show the defendant has no defence to the claim. Finding that the debt for goods and services rendered had been made out on the documents and that the matters raised by the defendants did not amount to a bona fide triable issue requiring oral evidence, the court was satisfied that the plaintiff was entitled to final judgment without a trial. It granted summary judgment against the first defendant for the sum claimed with interest, held that both corporate guarantees applied so as to fix the second defendant with liability, and awarded costs. The judgment illustrates the summary disposal of a documented commercial debt where the defence discloses no genuine triable issue.