STARFISH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 1. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 2. ) WAHIDATUL ZAKIAH BINTI BAHARUM

STARFISH HOLDINGS SDN BHD 1. ) HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD 2. ) WAHIDATUL ZAKIAH BINTI BAHARUM

The Court held that on the balance of probabilities the drawer (Appellant) knowingly or negligently contributed to the forgeries by entrusting chequebooks to a non‑signatory and failing to reconcile cheque butts with bank statements, and the bank established it paid in good faith; therefore s.73A operated to defeat the s.24 claim and the bank was not liable, justifying reversal of the Sessions Court and dismissal of the Appellant's appeal.

Citation
W-04(NCC)(W)-498-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Starfish Holdings Sdn Bhd; First Respondent: Hong Leong Bank Berhad; Second Respondent: Wahidatul Zakiah binti Baharum
Court
NCC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 October 2023
Case Number
W-04(NCC)(W)-498-10/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (banking/forgery Dispute) / Court of Appeal After‑trial Appeal; Grounds of Judgment (final Disposition)
Legal Topics
Forged Cheques, Bills of Exchange Act 1949 S.24, Bills of Exchange Act 1949 S.73 a, Bills of Exchange Act 1949 S.95, Negligence by Drawer, Good Faith by Bank, Standard Operating Procedures, Reconciliation Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Banking Law Commercial Law Tort (conversion) Contract Law Evidence Law Statutory Interpretation Forged Cheques Bills of Exchange Act 1949 S.24 +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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Starfish Holdings Sdn Bhd

Appellant

Hong Leong Bank Berhad

First Respondent

Wahidatul Zakiah binti Baharum

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (banking/forgery Dispute) / Court of Appeal After‑trial Appeal; Grounds of Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the drawer/customer knowingly or negligently contributed to the forgery under s.73A BEA
  2. 2 Whether the bank paid in good faith under s.95 BEA and is therefore not liable under s.24 BEA
  3. 3 Whether the Sessions Court misapplied evidence and law warranting appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that on the balance of probabilities the drawer (Appellant) knowingly or negligently contributed to the forgeries by entrusting chequebooks to a non‑signatory and failing to reconcile cheque butts with bank statements, and the bank established it paid in good faith; therefore s.73A operated to defeat the s.24 claim and the bank was not liable, justifying reversal of the Sessions Court and dismissal of the Appellant's appeal.