AMBANK (M) BERHAD v 1. ) HIGAIN VENTURES SDN BHD 2. ) LX MODE (M) SDN BHD 3. ) ZAHARUDIN BIN ZAINOL RASHID 4. ) EDDEE DZULKARNEIN BIN ZAHARUDIN

Case Significance

Grants summary judgment for a bank on a Certificate of Indebtedness, confirming that such a certificate, issued per the contract's express terms, is final and conclusive of the amount absent manifest error or fraud, and that bare denials do not raise a triable issue.

This High Court (Kuala Lumpur) decision concerns a bank's application for summary judgment against a company and its guarantors on a debt. AmBank (M) Berhad, as plaintiff, filed the summary judgment application under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012. The hearing was first fixed for 13 January 2025 but could not proceed because counsel for the defendants said she had no valid practising certificate, and the court adjourned to allow her to regularise her locus. When the application was heard on 17 April 2025, counsel for the bank was present but counsel for the defendants was absent, no reason having been given, and the defendants' counsel had also filed no written submission opposing the application despite the court's direction.

The court set out the governing principles for an Order 14 application, namely that the burden of showing a triable issue lies on the defendants, and that it is not enough for the defendants to make bare allegations or give a mere general denial of the debt. It reiterated that where an alleged triable issue is contradicted by, or inconsistent with, contemporaneous documents, that alleged issue must be rejected.

A significant part of the reasoning concerned the Certificate of Indebtedness. The court explained that a certificate of indebtedness issued in accordance with the express provisions of a contract, which provide that the certificate is final and conclusive, is final and conclusive evidence of the amount stated in the absence of any manifest error, so that the bank has no further obligation to produce statements of account to prove the debt in a summary judgment application. The exceptions arise where the certificate was not issued in accordance with the express contractual provisions (for example, not signed by the officer stated in the contract), where there is a manifest error in the amounts, or where there is fraud. Finding that the defendants had failed to show any grounds to challenge the certificate, the court held that the alleged triable issues, including a bare denial of any debt, were not triable, and allowed the summary judgment with costs of RM5,000, subject to allocatur.