ANISH RESOURCES SDN BHD PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

ANISH RESOURCES SDN BHD PUBLIC BANK BERHAD

The remittance instruction, as drafted and validated by the bank, made the beneficiary name an operative identifier for telegraphic transfers; the bank breached its contractual obligation by failing to ensure the receiving banks treated the beneficiary name as an identifier and thereby caused loss to the customer. The bank cannot rely on the exclusion clause in the remittance form because it effectively bars enforcement of contractual rights and is void under s.29 Contracts Act 1950 as interpreted in CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-77-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: ANISH RESOURCES SDN BHD; Respondent / Defendant: PUBLIC BANK BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-77-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (banking Contract) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; respondent bank held liable; relevant exclusion clause declared void under s.29 Contracts Act 1950
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, Telegraphic Transfer/remittance, Breach of Contract, S.29 Contracts Act 1950, Identification of Beneficiary, Intermediary/agent Bank Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Banking Law Agency Law Civil Procedure Exclusion Clauses Telegraphic Transfer/remittance Breach of Contract S.29 Contracts Act 1950 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ANISH RESOURCES SDN BHD

Appellant / Plaintiff

PUBLIC BANK BHD

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (banking Contract) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank breached its contract by failing to ensure funds credited to the named beneficiary despite validation of beneficiary name on the remittance form
  2. 2 Whether the bank may rely on exclusion clause in its remittance form (Clause 8) to disclaim liability for erroneous overseas credits
  3. 3 Whether Clause 9 (account-number-only rule for IBG) applies to telegraphic transfers or implies that beneficiary name must be treated as an identifier for TTs

Ratio Decidendi

The remittance instruction, as drafted and validated by the bank, made the beneficiary name an operative identifier for telegraphic transfers; the bank breached its contractual obligation by failing to ensure the receiving banks treated the beneficiary name as an identifier and thereby caused loss to the customer. The bank cannot rely on the exclusion clause in the remittance form because it effectively bars enforcement of contractual rights and is void under s.29 Contracts Act 1950 as interpreted in CIMB Bank Bhd v Anthony Lawrence Bourke & Anor.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; respondent bank held liable; relevant exclusion clause declared void under s.29 Contracts Act 1950

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Respondent Bank to repay outstanding sum to Appellant in respect of the miscredited remittances (outstanding RM434,503.87)