Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quincecare duty

Legal area

Court

3 Mar 2026

Ng Yok Kwang CIMB BANK BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-46-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The bank breached its duty by failing to use available fraud-detection systems and its contractual power under Clause 21.1(iv) to take protective steps after an objectively detectable 14-day pattern of abnormal maximum withdrawals from an elderly customer's account; causation was shared and liability apportioned 60% to the bank and 40% to the deceased, resulting in judgment for 60% of proven withdrawals.
25 Sept 2025

SAFIAH SULAIMAN BINTI ISMAIL BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCC-59-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-59-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached any fiduciary duty or duty of care; the loss was caused by the plaintiff's voluntary actions in disclosing or enabling use of security credentials (including providing a third party telephone number and opening the account), which broke the chain of causation and entitled the bank to rely on authenticated transactions, therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
15 May 2025

Public Bank Berhad Bukit Baru Villas Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

W-02(NCvC)(W)-1851-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

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…
14 Apr 2025

PAX INVESTMENTS LIMITED STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCC-231-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-231-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The bank breached its contractual and common law duties by mishandling the due diligence/reactivation process and negligently handling the garnishee proceedings (deficient notification, failure to dispute liability and improper release); those breaches were the but-for and proximate cause of the Plaintiff's loss; Plaintiff entitled to recover principal RM6,588,605.74 plus recoverable special damages (Malaysian legal fees and travel expenses) and interest; costs awarded on standard basis.
9 Dec 2022

TSA INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 1. ) XXXX 2. ) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCVC-89-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCVC-89-02/2017 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on balance that 79 LOIs were forged by the 1st defendant in conspiracy with defendants 2–5 and entered judgment against 1st–5th defendants; the bank was not liable because it had exercised reasonable care in processing faxed LOIs, a clear letter of indemnity authorised reliance on faxed instructions and the plaintiff was contractually estopped by failure to query monthly statements; statutory defences and limitation arguments also supported dismissal of claim against the bank.
11 Nov 2021

1. SPHERE MANAGEMENT (MAURITIUS) LIMITED 2. SRI HARI INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LIMITED 3. SAHAJANDAND INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED 4. JMR CAPITAL LIMITED 1. CIMB BANK BERHAD (Company No.: 13491-P) 2. GEMILANG TEGAS SDN BHD (Company No.: 1246203-M)

Citation

WA-22NCC-107-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-107-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The pleadings against the receiving bank disclosed no reasonable cause of action: no legal duty of care was owed to non-customer originators; Quincecare duty and duties to inquire do not extend to the facts pleaded; the bank did not retain or become enriched by the funds and therefore claims in constructive trust, knowing receipt, monies had and received or unjust enrichment fail; accordingly the action against the 1st Defendant is struck out under Order 18 rule 19.
3 Aug 2021

1. ) KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) KHEE SAN BERHAD MAYBANK ISLAMIC BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-269-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-269-07/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused the stay because the merits of the appeal are not a relevant basis for a stay, the defendants failed to establish special circumstances or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory, and the ordinary prospect of winding up or PN-17 consequences does not suffice; accordingly stay was dismissed and costs awarded.
3 Aug 2021

1. ) KHEE SAN BERHAD 2. ) KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD OCBC AL-AMIN BANK BERHAD

Citation

WA-22M-310-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22M-310-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate special circumstances to justify a stay; the merits of the appeal are not a relevant factor in this debt recovery context; plaintiffs admitted liability; risk of winding up or PN-17 classification and speculative stifling of appeal do not amount to special circumstances; balance of justice favoured defendant (bank).
29 Jun 2021

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 115793-P) 1. KHEE SAN FOOD INDUSTRIES SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 27605-H) 2. KHEE SAN BERHAD (NO. SYARIKAT: 304376-A)

Citation

WA-22NCC-589-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-589-11/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 41 (extension of time) dismissed for unexplained delay and prejudice; Enclosure 14 (strike out counterclaim) allowed as duplicative/res judicata; Enclosure 9 (summary judgment) allowed because documents on their face were genuine, no reasonable grounds put the bank on inquiry under Quincecare, and defendants failed to raise any triable issue.
2 Jun 2021

Khee San Berhad & 1 Lagi OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Berhad

Citation

WA-22NCC-401-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-401-08/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The stay application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show special circumstances relating to enforcement of the judgment: the merits of the appeal are not a relevant basis for stay; there was no evidence of the defendant's inability to repay (impecuniosity) or of nugatoriness; and a stay would unjustly deprive the defendant of the fruits of litigation.