We had the occasion to act for a roof specialist company against 2 guarantors of transactions between our client and a third party company.
On advice, our client filed a Summary Judgment application against the 2 guarantors.
One of the legal issues raised by the 2 guarantors was the unilateral imposition of interest in our client’s invoices.
We argued that at all material times after:
(a) receiving our invoices, the third party company did not raise any issue regarding the interest imposed; and
(b) signing the Guarantee, the 2 guarantors did not raised any issue regarding the interest imposed.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Kuantan Wire Products Sdn Bhd v Kim Construction Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] MLJU 1682 was particularly helpful:
“[20] Learned counsel for the Respondent had submitted that the imposition of the 1.5% per month on the amount due was not provided for in the 2007 agreement. With respect, learned counsel had ignored what was provided in the invoices and that was “overdue interest charges to be charged at 1.5% per month calculated on a daily basis on all overdue amounts”. It was our view that the Respondent knew the aforesaid provision and had not protested this claim at all when the invoices were presented to the Respondent. We were therefore of the view that the Appellant was entitled to claim such interest.” (Emphasis ours)
The Court agreed with our submission and granted our client Summary Judgment against the 2 guarantors, with interest as per our client’s invoices.