National Feedlot Corporation Sdn Bhd & 4 Ors v Public Bank Berhad [2023] 7 AMR 213, CA

Banking law – Banker and customer – Breach of statutory duty – Wrongful disclosure of confidential information of customer's bank accounts to third parties – Whether bank in breach of implied contractual duty to maintain and protect customers confidential information – Whether preclusion of customers from maintaining claim against bank premised on criminal charges preferred against customers tenable – Whether bank breached s 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and fiduciary duties to customers – Whether customers proved claim for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages – Whether there were appealable errors to warrant appellate interference – Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s 97, 97(1), (2) – Financial Services Act 2013, s 133

Banking law – Information and secrecy – Information relating to bank accounts of customers – Wrongful disclosure to third parties – Whether bank in breach of implied contractual duty to maintain and protect customers confidential information – Whether preclusion of customers from maintaining claim against bank premised on criminal charges preferred against customers tenable – Whether bank breached s 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and fiduciary duties to customers – Whether customers proved claim for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages – Whether there were appealable errors to warrant appellate interference – Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s 97, 97(1), (2) – Financial Services Act 2013, s 133

Damages (General) – Breach of statutory duty – Claim for loss and damages – Wrongful disclosure of confidential information of customers bank accounts to third parties – Whether bank in breach of implied contractual duty to maintain and protect customers confidential information – Whether preclusion of customers from maintaining claim against bank premised on criminal charges preferred against customers tenable – Whether bank breached s 97(1) of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 and fiduciary duties to customers – Whether customers proved claim for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages – Whether there were appealable errors to warrant appellate interference – Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989, s 97, 97(1), (2) – Financial Services Act 2013, s 133

Khoo Siew Beng & Anor v Khoo Boo Wee (Tin Sin Eng – Proposed Intervener) [2023] 7 AMR 291, HC

Civil procedure – Parties – Intervention – Proposed intervener sought to intervene in action between children in respect of validity of deceased's alleged will – Whether proposed intervener's legal interests affected by said action – Whether proposed intervener satisfied requirements stipulated in Order 15 r 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012 – Whether relief claimed against proposed intervener – Whether issues raised in suit concerned proposed intervener or proposed intervener interests – Whether application to intervene ought to be allowed – Rules of Court 2012, Order 15 r 6(2)(b)(ii)

Koperasi Amanah Pelaburan Berhad v Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia Berhad [2023] 7 AMR 305, HC

Civil procedure – Injunctions – Interlocutory injunction – Application to restrain enforcement of High Court order by landlord until disposal of main suit – Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal disallowed – Landlord obtained leave to file writ of possession and demanded tenant to vacate premises – Whether application made in bad faith and abuse of court's process – Whether doctrine of res judicata and inordinate delay applicable – Whether pre-conditions to grant interim injunction established – Rules of Court 2012, Order 29 r 1(2A)(e), (f)

Seng Hiap Glass Sdn Bhd v CEL Construction Sdn Bhd [2023] 7 AMR 315, HC

Evidence – Witnesses – Recalling of – Application filed by defendant after plaintiff's case closed and one day prior to close of its own case – Lack of preparations due to recent appointment cited as ground for refusal to conduct cross-examination – Whether plaintiff's witness ought to be recalled for cross-examination in view of defendant's conduct – Whether strong and cogent reasons made out for allowing recall application