AFFIN BANK BERHAD v 1. ) PCS VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) PHENG CHIN SHIUN

Case Significance

Reinforces, on a guaranteed banking facility, that a defendant who signs the loan and guarantee documents is bound by them and that a general denial of indebtedness cannot survive against certificates of indebtedness, warranting summary judgment under Order 14.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, in the Commercial Division, is a companion summary-judgment matter between the same bank and the same corporate borrower and guarantor, arising from a separate facility, and it applies the same Order 14 principles to the defendants' asserted defences. As in the related suit, only the plaintiff's counsel filed written submissions, the defendants' counsel filing none to oppose the application, and the court decided the matter on the pleadings, affidavits, and the plaintiff's submissions.

The court applied the settled test that a defendant resisting summary judgment must raise a genuine triable issue, supported by sufficient facts and particulars, rather than bare assertions, and that a court must scrutinise the asserted issues robustly against the documentary record. It examined the specific defences advanced. The contention that the defendants had not been allowed to amend the loan documents and the guarantee before signing was unsupported by any authority, and in any event the court held that the defendants were bound by the agreements they had signed, so this raised no triable issue. The denial that any debt was owed, and the alternative complaint that the sum claimed was excessive, could not be maintained in the face of the Certificates of Indebtedness produced by the plaintiff, and the challenge to the interest was similarly untenable.

The court also emphasised that a defendant who fails to file any submission in opposition, and offers no supporting authority for its contentions, cannot expect the court to construct a triable issue on its behalf; the burden of demonstrating a genuine dispute fit for trial remains squarely on the defendant throughout. Satisfied that none of the matters raised amounted to a triable issue, the court allowed summary judgment for the plaintiff with costs. The judgment reinforces, in the context of a guaranteed banking facility, that a defendant who signs the loan and guarantee documents is bound by them, and that a general denial of indebtedness cannot survive against certificates of indebtedness produced by the lender. It illustrates the consistent disposal of parallel banking claims on the same Order 14 reasoning, where the same borrower and guarantor default on distinct facilities extended by the same lender.