Order 14

UNP Plywood Sdn Bhd v HSBC Bank Malaysia Bhd - summary judgment procedure is a
procedural device available for prompt and expeditious disposition of an action by a Plaintiff or a
counterclaim by a Defendant, without a trial where there is no dispute as to the fact and law.
This is an efficacious and expeditious procedure enabling the Plaintiff to dispose of an action
where the Defendants defence is clearly unsustainable in law or on the facts, thus obviating the
need for a full trial.
Eng Say Kuang v Hong Leong Bank Bhd - A single issue meriting trial is sufficient to deny the
applicant a judgment under this order.
John Lo Thau Fah v FACB Resorts Bhd - the court held that in a case where there are no
disputed facts and if the only issue is one of law then the application must be made pursuant to
RHC O.14A and not O.14.
Mayban Finance Bhd v Wong Gieng Suk - where there are triable issues, however, summary
judgment would not be proper.
The Plaintiff must establish its cause of action. Once the Plaintiff succeeds in making out a
prima facie case, the onus then shifts to the Defendant to show to this court as to why judgment
should not be entered against it.
Renofac Builder (M) Sdn Bhd v Chase Perdana Bhd - the court here remarked But a mere
bare assertion by the defendant would not be sufficient. The duty of the court is quite onerous in
the extreme. The court must be vigilant and must view in perspective at the whole scenario in
order to ascertain whether the defendant has a real or what is commonly known as a bona fide
defence.
Abdul Wahab Patail J in Alliance Finance Bhd v Cahaya Kelang Construction Sdn Bhd
following Malayan Insurance (M) Sdn Bhd v Asia Hotel Sdn Bhd - The underlying philosophy
in the O.14 provision is to prevent a Plaintiff clearly entitled to the money from being delayed his
judgment where there is no fairly arguable defence to the claim. The provision should only be
applied to cases where there is no reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment.
Order 14 is not intended to shut out a defendant. The jurisdiction should only be exercised in
very clear cases.
Seah FJ in National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn Bhd laid down the
following preliminary requirements for a RHC O.14 application:
i. the defendant must have entered an appearance;
ii. the statement of claim must have served on the defendant; and
iii. the affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of O.14 r.2.
Citec International Sdn Bhd v Yeam Sai Meng - Azman Abdullah JC held that it is trite law
that several requirements have to be fulfilled prior to allowing an order for summary judgment as
was decided by the Federal Court in National Company for Foreign Trade v Kayu Raya Sdn
Bhd.
Cempaka Finance Bhd v Ho Lai Ying(trading as KH Trading) - the FC held that once those
conditions are fulfilled, the burden then shifts to the defendant to raise triable issues.

A complete defence need not be shown. The defence need only show that there is a triable
issue or question or that for some other reason there ought to be a trial, and leave to defend
ought to be given. In fact, even though the defence is not clearly established, but only
reasonable probability of there being a real defence, leave to defend should be given: Jacobs v
Booths Distillery Co.
RHB Bank Bhd v Tan Swee Long Holdings Sdn Bhd - the court held that the defendants
should be allowed to defend where the court is satisfied from the issue raised and whether in
the circumstances of the case there ought to be a trial. It is not enough for the defendant to
merely deny the amount owed but the defendant must plead any salient and relevant facts
which negative the existence of the debt or which show that the claim is not maintainable on
other grounds.
In the words of the CA in Chen Heng Ping v Intradagang Merchant Bankers (M) Bhd per
Mahadev Shankar JCA: When an application is made for summary judgment under O.14
supprted by an affidavit which goes to show that there is no defence, the defendants must show
cause why leave to defend must be given. This means that the defendants must provide
answers on oath which constitute evidence that they have a defence which is fit to be tried.
Denials in a defence do not constitute evidence. They are challenges to the other side to show
proof.
Situations where summary judgment is available
1. Monies due and owing
2. Negligence actions
3. an action for an account
4. admiralty actions
5. probate actions
6. injunctive relief
7. declaratory relief
8. specific performance
9. action involving the government
10. enforcement of foreign judgment
Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd v Highland Chocolate & Confectionery
Sdn Bhd - If a Plaintiff chooses to proceed by way of an originating summons, he must forfeit
his right to obtain summary judgment under this order or O.81.