J&T EXPRESS (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. v 1. ) AER EMPIRE SDN BHD 2. ) MUHAMMAD MURSHID BIN ABU HASSAN

Case Significance

Illustrates how a summary-judgment defence resting on unsupported claims of settlement or overcharging collapses against the contemporaneous documentary record under Order 14.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam determines an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a commercial debt claim by a courier company, J&T Express (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd, against a delivery-point operator, Aer Empire Sdn Bhd, and a second defendant who was sued together with it. The claim, exceeding one million ringgit with interest, arose from two collaboration agreements under which the operator was to run designated outlets as Premium Delivery Points, the agreed terms entitling the courier company to deduct delivery fees on delivery and other applicable charges directly, and the sum was claimed jointly and severally against both defendants with interest at five per cent per annum from judgment until settlement. Because no preliminary objection was taken, the sole question was whether the defendants could show a triable issue or some other reason for a trial within the meaning of Order 14 rule 3. The defendants resisted summary judgment on the footing that the courier company had agreed to reduce the outstanding sum, had agreed to bear renovation costs of RM160,000, and had overcharged for lorry rental by billing for a period after the agreements were terminated. The Court examined the documentary record and rejected each contention. On the alleged reduction, it found nothing in the minutes of the parties’ meeting to show that the courier company had agreed, consented or acquiesced to any reduction of the debt. It found no evidence that the courier company had agreed to pay the renovation costs, and it found that the lorry-rental charge in issue related only to the months the agreements were on foot, not to any post-termination period. Concluding that the defendants were justly and truly indebted in the full sum claimed, the Court, per Choong Yeow Choy JC, allowed summary judgment and ordered costs of RM20,000. The judgment illustrates how a summary-judgment defence built on unsupported assertions of settlement or overcharging fails against the contemporaneous documents.