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

Legal Update 17 of 2016

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 17 of 2016
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 17 of 2016

    By admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 8 January, 2017 | 0

    Lifting of Corporate Veil – Whether action can be taken against the directors of a company for a company debt.

    Case:

    Chin Chee Keong v Toling Corporation (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 4 MLRA 180 CA

    Brief Facts:

    • The respondent or plaintiff was a former partner in a legal firm known as Messrs Junaidah Mogana & Partners. The legal firm had two partners, namely, the plaintiff and one Junaidah bin Mohd Noh.
    • The legal firm, as the customer of RHB Bank Berhad (the “bank”) had two accounts with the bank; a client’s account and an office account.
    • The plaintiff was the sole signatory for cheques for both these accounts.
    • In 2004, the plaintiff had left the country to further her studies in Japan. She then gave the bank a letter advising the bank that her husband (“Harikrishnan”) had been appointed and given the mandate to sign cheques for both accounts of the firm.
    • The Plaintiff also informed the bank that the she authorised the firm’s dispatch clerk (“Mohd Safi”) to encash cheques on behalf of the legal firm.
    • While the Plaintiff was away, she had asked her sister (“Devaki”) to retain custody of the cheque books containing cheque leaves pre-signed by by Harikrishnan.
    • Thus, all cheques in the firm were filled in by either Umapathy or Harikrishnan and they took instruction from Junaidah or Umapathy.
    • The legal firm’s offical rubber stamp remained the same and was under the possession and control of Junaidah.
    • In 2006, the plaintiff discovered that unauthorised transactions had been carried out involving both the bank account.
    • Thus, the plaintiff instituted a claim founded on negligence against the bank on the grounds that the bank had failed to comply with the mandates given by it to the bank. The bank maintained that it had acted in accordance with the valid mandate.
    • The High Court concluded that the Bank had breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff. Hence, the present appeal by the Bank.

    Decision: Bank's Appeal Allowed

    • The Bank had followed the standard procedure when presented with a cash cheque which is essentially to ensure that the cheque has been signed by an authorised signatory in accordance with its mandate.
    • A duty of care would be owed by the customer to the bank to ensure that it exercises due care in the drawing of cheques so as to preclude fraud or forgery. The case is not one of forged cheques.
    • In this case, the pre-signing of the cheques indicates that the required mandate is accorded to the bank.
    • The bank’s duty of care does not extend to detecting internal fraud on part of its customers’ employee.
    •  The extraordinary internal system of issuance of cheques adopted by the plaintiff had contributed to the facilitation of internal fraud.
    • The legal firm had failed to exercise due care and caution in the drawing and issuance of cheques, failed to put a system in place to safeguard against the acts and ommissions of its employees and partners and failed to monitor transactions from these two accounts separately.
    • The legal firm had contributorily negligent in allowing the pre-signing of cheques and the protocol adopted for the issuance of the cheques.
    • Hence, negligence cannot be said to have been established against the bank.

    No tags.

    admin

    https://t.me/pump_upp

    More posts by admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 jhj admin | 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 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    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
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil