PAC LEASE BERHAD v 1. ) GRENEPARK VILLAGE SDN. BHD. 2. ) GREGORY AMOS YOON PENG SUM 3. ) MOHD HALIM WHY BIN ABDULLAH 4. ) PARAGRENE LAND BERHAD

Case Significance

Applies the Order 14 summary-judgment test in a licensed-moneylending claim, holding that bare denials unsupported by evidence do not raise a triable issue once the lender shows statutory compliance and a strong prima facie case.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, in the Commercial Division, concerns an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012 by a licensed moneylender against a corporate borrower and its guarantors. The plaintiff, holding a licence under the Moneylenders Act 1951, had granted the first defendant a term loan facility, reduced into a money-lending agreement providing for monthly instalments, and secured by guarantees executed by the second and third defendants and a corporate guarantor. On default, the plaintiff sought judgment for the outstanding sum, together with contractual interest and costs.

The defences raised issues about compliance with the borrower-protection requirements of the Moneylenders Act 1951 and about the service of the loan documents under Order 79 of the Rules of Court 2012, as well as challenges to the execution and validity of the guarantees. The court was alert to the principle, drawn from authority including Powernet Industries Sdn Bhd v Golden Wheel Credit Sdn Bhd, that non-compliance with statutory provisions enacted to protect borrowers cannot be waived, so that a moneylender must satisfy the statutory requirements. On the facts, however, the court was satisfied that the applicable requirements had been met and that the documentary record supported the claim.

Applying the settled Order 14 standard, the court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, whereupon the burden shifted to the defendants to raise a genuine triable issue. Relying on Voo Min En v Leong Chung Fatt, the court held that it is not enough for a defendant merely to raise an issue; the issue must be one that genuinely requires a trial. It found that the defendants had failed to do so, their defences amounting to bare denials unsupported by documentary evidence. The court accordingly allowed summary judgment and entered judgment against the defendants jointly and severally for RM1,170,877.32 as at 2 September 2024, with interest at 8% per annum and costs of RM3,000. The judgment is a clear application of the Order 14 test in a licensed-moneylending claim.