1. ) D SMILE ACADEMY 2. ) MOHD SULAIMAN BIN NUBA 3. ) JAGDISHPAL SINGH A/L DARSHAN SINGH 4. ) GIGITAL DENTAL GROUP SDN. BHD 5. ) HARVIR SINGH SIDHU 6. ) MUHAMMAD FATHULLAH BIN MOHD YUSSOF 7. ) NORAINI BINTI AHMAD NAWAWI v 1. ) GRABFLEET MANAGEMENT SDN BHD 2. ) IMRAN BIN A HAMID

Case Significance

Confirms that a bare denial unsupported by documentary evidence does not raise a triable issue capable of resisting summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012.

This High Court decision concerns an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a claim for breach of an investment agreement. The plaintiffs — a mix of individuals and business entities — had entered into a written agreement described as the "Perjanjian Vendor" (Vendor Agreement) with the first defendant, Grabfleet Management Sdn Bhd, a company managed by the second defendant. Under that arrangement the plaintiffs invested substantial sums in return for monthly returns payable over a period of sixty months. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants defaulted on the promised payments from a certain point onward and thereafter failed or refused to meet their contractual obligations, and applied for summary judgment on the footing that this was a straightforward debt claim supported by a written agreement and contemporaneous documents, with no bona fide defence disclosed. The defendants opposed the application, contending that there were factual disputes requiring adjudication at trial. The court's task was to decide whether the defendants had raised any genuine triable issue, and in particular whether a bare denial, unsupported by documentary evidence, could amount to a triable issue sufficient to resist summary disposal. Reviewing the pleadings, affidavits and submissions, the court held that the defendants had filed a statement of defence and affidavit in reply but had raised nothing more than mere assertions, unsupported by documentation and contradicting both the plaintiffs' evidence and the defendants' own admissions. It considered this precisely the kind of case Order 14 was designed for, where no meaningful dispute exists and delay would only prejudice the rightful claimants. The court allowed an oral amendment to the enclosure and granted summary judgment on the relevant prayers with costs of RM10,000.00. The judgment illustrates that a mere denial without supporting evidence does not raise a triable issue under Order 14.