You are on page 1of 2

Tan Yaw Soon & Ainor v Teng Sian Loong Enterprise, Abdul Kadir Sulaiman J held that An

application by a plaintiff under O.81 of the RHC is similar to an application under O.14 for a
summary judgment on the ground that the defendant has no defence. It is established law that
the court would exercise its discretion for summary judgment only in plain and obvious cases,
ie, that there is no bona fide defence. But if the Defendant satisfies the court in such an
application by the Plaintiff that there is a triable issue in the matter, summary judgment will not
be given to the Plaintiff. The determination of whether an issue is or is not triable depends on
the facts or the law arising from each case as disclosed in the affidavit evidence before the
court. A defence need not be shown...
In Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v Perusahaan Iroufield Sdn Bhd, Lee Hum Hoe had this to say on
an Order 81 application for summary judgment:
The summary judgment conferred by O.81 must be used with great care. It provides a
procedure similar to O.14. Where all the issues are clear, summary judgment should be given. A
defendant ought not to be shut out from defending unless it is very clear that he has no case in
the action. A complete defence need not be shown. The defence set up need only show that
there is triable issue or question or that for some reason there ought to be a trial..
Woolley Developments Sdn Bhd v IViikien Sdn Bhd - The plaintiff in a summary judgment
application first needs to establish a prima facie case that he is entitled to judgment. The
burden then shifts to the defendant to satisfy the court why judgment should not be given
against him. Ought in O.81 r.3 is an expression of a strong probability. In other words, the issue
in dispute must be critically investigated and be determined as genuine. This is what a
defendant needs to prove to be entitled to a trial of that disputed issue. A judge in allowing for a
summary judgment under O.81 of the RHC, does so in the exercise of his discretionary
jurisdiction. He may enter a judgment for the plaintiff or allow leave to defend the action. If an
appellate court finds that this discretion had been judicially exercised in the sense that he had
properly evaluated the facts to find no arguable case, and had not been wrong in law or erred in
principle, then the judges decision should not be disturbed here.
Peninsular Land Development Sdn Bhd v K Ahmad - As a general rule, where a defendant
shows that he has a fair case for a defence or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence or
even a fair probability that he has a bona fide defence, he ought to be given leave to defend, but
the discretion lies with the judge and the defendant must show facts as might be deemed
sufficient to entitle him to defend.
Mawar Awal (M) Sdn Bhd v Kepong Management Sdn Bhd & Anor Order 81 of the RHC relates to the procedure for summary judgment and it applies to any
action begun by writ indorsed with a claim. It has the same procedural objective as O.14 of the
RHC in that it provides for a speedy mechanism for obtaining summary judgment without
proceeding to a trial. It is certainly effective in an action for specific performance for the sale and
purchase of a piece of land where there is no defence action at all. It must be borne in mind that
an application for summary judgment under O.81 of the RHC may be filed notwithstanding the
fact that the defendant had not entered an appearance (Alloy Automotive Sdn Bhd v
Perusahaan Ironfield Sdn Bhd). It is also ideal to note that an application under O.81 of the RHC
must relate to the whole action at hand. Of course, the remedy for specific performance is
enshrined in the Specific Relief Act 1950 and it is entirely discretionary(Sekemas Sdn Bhd v
Lian Seng Co Sdn Bhd); and Yeong Ne Hong v Bumida Engineering & Construction Sdn bhd
and it is also ideal to enforce an agreement, whether in writing or not, for the sale and purchase
of a property as exemplified in Bank of Tokyo Ltd v Mohd Zaini bin Arshad; Chong Hoong &
Anor v Wong Yuen Sang; Chan Kin & Anor v Chareen Realty Development Sdn Bhd; and
masalam Sdn Bhd v Ngah bin Embong & Anor. Specific performance too is effective in ordering

the delivery of strata title as seen in case of Syed Azman bin Syed Mohamed v Lian Seng (KL)
Construction Co sdn Bhd. It has often been said that an order for summary judgment under
O.81 of the RHC should only be made in a plain case and where there is no necessity for a
trial(Bigg v Boyd Gibbins Ltd). Such a procedure is also ideal where the defence put forward is
obviously frivolous and practically moonshine(Codd v Delap). The court is empowered after
hearing an O.81 application togive judgment to the plaintiff (r.3 of O.81 of RHC) unless the
defendant succeeds in satisfying the court that there is an issue or question in dispute which
ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason to be a trial of the action (r.3 of O.81
RHC)
Hew Hooi Chun v KL Teksi Radio Bhd - Court of Appeal pointed out that O.81 applies where the
claim is for specific performance for an agreement for the sale, purchase or exchange of
property, or the grant or assignment of a lease of any property but not for specific performance
of an agreement for some other obligation. In that case, as the agreement was not an
agreement for the sale, purchase or exchange of property, O.81 had no application.
Diong Tieow Hong v Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd - court held that seeking a declaratory relief under
the Order after the SPA had been duly terminated was the correct procedure and upon
termination of the SPA, the plaintiffs were entitled to a refund of all the monies paid.