OCEAN GLORY SEAFOOD SDN. BHD. v GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

wa-22ncc-248-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 4 August 2025 • WA-22NCC-248-04/2024 • 9 min read
5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Outcome

For the reasons above, I allow the summary judgment for RM 891,879.60 with interest at 5% p.a. from the date of writ to payment with costs of RM 10,000.00 subject to allocatur.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) (wa-22ncc-248-04-2024). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

in an Order 14 application, the burden is not on the plaintiff to prove his case-The burden of proof to show a triable issue is on the defendant. It is not enough for the defendant to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of a debt-A court hearing an Order 14 application must take a robust approach and examine carefully to see if sufficient facts and particulars had been given by a defendant to show that there is a triable issue to justify leave to defend-If an alleged triable issue is contradicted or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents, the defendant’s alleged triable issue must be rejected-Where such assertion, denial or dispute is equivocal, or lacking in precision or is inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or is inherently improbable in itself, then the judge has a duty to reject such assertion or denial, thereby rendering the issue not triable-if you swear that there was fraud, that will not do. It is difficult to define it, but you must give such an extent of definite facts pointing to the fraud as to satisfy the judge that those are facts which make it reasonable that you should be allowed to raise the defence

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (5)

Felix Saw Firm Vaasan Chan & Chandran Firm Amalina Suhaimy Counsel Plaintiff Kong Xin Er Counsel Defendant Lim Soo Zee Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

GCH RETAIL Sdn Bhd Defendant OCEAN GLORY SEAFOOD Sdn Bhd Plaintiff

Cases Cited (5)

MY (5)
[1990] 2 MLJ 36 [1992] 1 MLJ 400 [1999] 8 CLJ 592 [2006] 3 CLJ 544 [2011] 1 CLJ 857

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-248-04-2024)