Public Bank Berhad Bukit Baru Villas Sdn Bhd

Public Bank Berhad Bukit Baru Villas Sdn Bhd

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the impugned signatures were forged based on the convergence of (i) direct denials by the alleged signatories, (ii) admissible expert handwriting opinion, and (iii) the bank’s own officers admitting visible differences; the bank failed to establish estoppel under s24 and failed both limbs of s73A (no causative contribution by BBV to the forgeries and no good faith by the bank given objective red flags and inadequate verification), and section 29 Limitation Act could not be invoked because fraud was not pleaded against the bank; accordingly both appeals were dismissed and the High Court decision affirmed.

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant and Respondent: Public Bank Berhad; Respondent and Appellant: Bukit Baru Villas Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 May 2025
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeals Affirming High Court Decision
Outcome
Both appeals dismissed; High Court judgment of 23 October 2023 affirmed
Legal Topics
Forgery, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty, Estoppel, Bills of Exchange Act S24, Bills of Exchange Act S73 a, Good Faith (s95 Bea), Limitation (limitation Act S29), Expert Handwriting Evidence, Quincecare Duty
Source Language
Malay/English
Banking Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Forgery Negligence Fiduciary Duty Estoppel +6 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 6 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Bank Berhad

Appellant and Respondent

Bukit Baru Villas Sdn Bhd

Respondent and Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeals Affirming High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether signatures on impugned cheques were forged
  2. 2 Whether bank can rely on statutory defences under s24 and s73A BEA 1949
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff can invoke s29 Limitation Act 1953 to postpone limitation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the impugned signatures were forged based on the convergence of (i) direct denials by the alleged signatories, (ii) admissible expert handwriting opinion, and (iii) the bank’s own officers admitting visible differences; the bank failed to establish estoppel under s24 and failed both limbs of s73A (no causative contribution by BBV to the forgeries and no good faith by the bank given objective red flags and inadequate verification), and section 29 Limitation Act could not be invoked because fraud was not pleaded against the bank; accordingly both appeals were dismissed and the High Court decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals dismissed; High Court judgment of 23 October 2023 affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11/2023 dismissed with costs RM15,000.00 subject to allocatur
  • Appeal W-02(NCvC)(W)-1940-11/2023 dismissed with costs RM15,000.00 subject to allocatur