Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Our Reported Cases
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 12 of 2024

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 12 of 2024
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 12 of 2024

    By jhjadmin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 29 September, 2024 | 0

    “Who is liable when an employee forges cheques and cheats its Employer? The Employer? The Bank who helped cash the cheques? Or Both?”

    Case:

    STARFISH HOLDINGS SDN BHD V HONG LEONG BANK BERHAD & ANOR [2024]4 MLRA 526

    Brief Facts:

    • The Appellant, Starfish Holdings Sdn Bhd (“Starfish”) is a private limited company and the customer of the 1st Respondent, Hong Leong Bank Berhad (“HLBB”).

    • Starfish opened and maintained a current account with HLBB at its Desa Sri Hartamas bank branch for the purposes of its business.

    • Starfish employed the 2nd Respondent as its accounts clerk to handle its cheque books. However, the sole authorised signatory of the Account is Miss TCY.

    • Around 2.11.2017, Starfish discovered that there were 37 cheques totalling RM254,890.00 that was cleared without its authority and knowledge (“Unauthorised cheques”).

    • Amongst the Unauthorised cheques, 34 of them were cash cheques en-cashed by the 2nd Respondent over the counter of HLBB bank totalling RM248,700.00.

    • Starfish then commenced a civil suit against both HLBB and the 2nd Respondent to recover the sums lost.

    THE DECISION OF SESSIONS COURT (SC)


    • The SC ruled in favour of Starfish and opined that HLBB had no right to debit RM254,890.00 from Starfish’s Current Account.

    • HLBB was unhappy with the decision and appealed to the High Court.

    THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC) – APPEAL ALLOWED

    • The HC found that the signatures on the disputed cheques were deemed forgeries, which is supported by evidence.

    • The evidence showed that the Starfish employee was negligent by giving the 2nd Respondent access to the cheque books and failing to check the bank statements.

    • The HC disagreed with the SC finding that Starfish took preventive measures because Starfish breached the bank’s terms and conditions by not securing the cheque books properly.

    • The HC found that Starfish is negligent because it allowed a non-signatory access to cheque books.

    • The HC also found that Starfish failed to reconcile the monthly statements with the cheque butts, which would have revealed the forgeries.

    • The HC found that HLBB acted in good faith as there was no evidence of dishonesty on the part of HLBB.

    • HLBB was found to have complied with the SOP of checking the specimen signature and also calling the company if the amount exceeded RM30,000.00 per cheque. In this case all cheques were below RM30,000.00.

    • The HC ruled that Starfish was contractually obligated to check monthly bank statements and notify HLBB of any discrepancies within 14 days, which it failed to do, estopping it from claiming forgery.

    • Starfish was dissatisfied with this Judgment and lodged an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

    THE DECISION OF COURT OF APPEAL (COA) – APPEAL DISMISSED

    • The COA agreed with the HC that Starfish had knowingly or negligently contributed to the forgery and that HLBB had acted in good faith.

    • The COA dismissed the appeal.

    • HLBB was found not liable.

    No tags.

    jhjadmin

    More posts by jhjadmin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhjadmin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 9 of 2026
    • Legal Update 8 of 2026
    • Legal Update 7 of 2026
    • Legal Update 6 of 2026
    • Legal Update 5 of 2026
    • Legal Update 4 of 2026
    • Legal Update 3 of 2026

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Our Reported Cases
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil