Case:

Brief Facts:

• The Plaintiff in this case Suriati Mohd Yusof (“Suriati”) brought a claim for negligence and defamation against CTOS Data System Sdn Bhd (“CTOS”), a private credit reporting agency.
  
  
• On 16 April 2009, Suriati signed up for a standard internet service package called P1 WIMAX Home Plus Plan Service which was offered by Webe Digital Sdn Bhd (“Webe”) for a period of 24 months
  
  
• Pursuant to the P1 WIMAX Agreement, Webe duly activated the P1 WIMAX Service at Suriati’s address in April 2009 with a monthly charge of RM99.00 per month at that material time.
  
  
• On 21 January 2010, Suriati requested to upgrade the P1 WIMAX Service from the P1 WIMAX Home Plus Plan (24 Months) to the P1 WIMAX Home Pro Plan (24 Months). The monthly charges were therefore increased from RM99.00 per month to RM199.99 per month.
  
  
• However, Suriati had failed to issue the monthly payments and refused to pay the outstanding charges, causing Webe to terminate the P1 WIMAX Service on 31 August 2011. A total sum of RM2,186.60 was the remaining unpaid sum as at the date of termination.
  
  
• Kudrat Partners & Co (M) Sdn Bhd, a Debt Collection Agency on behalf of Webe had proposed that Suriati pay a sum of RM1,093.30 representing a 50% reduction on the total outstanding sum, as full and final settlement of the debt owed to Webe. Suriati refused and was only willing to pay a sum of RM500.00.
  
  
• Despite more reduction being offered, Suriati was persistent in refusing to settle the outstanding sums, thus Webe had no alternative but to report Suriati’s default to CTOS agency on 20 June 2012.
  
  
• In May 2019, Suriati attempted to apply for a loan for the purchase of a vehicle with a number of banks but all the applications were rejected as her CTOS report showed that she had a low credit score.
  
  
• Aggrieved by the situation, Suriati brought a claim to the High Court for defamation and negligence as the publishing and reporting of her credit information had led her to face personal and business loss.
  
  
• Prior to the suit in the High Court, Suriati had sued Webe in the Sessions Court alleging that she did not owe Webe any money.
  
  
• But in cross examination of Suriati at the Sessions Court, she admitted to owing Webe. The claim against Webe was dismissed. 

THE DECISION OF HIGH COURT (HC)

• The HC allowed Suriati’s claim against CTOS.
  
  
• The HC was of the opinion that due to CTOS breaching its duty of care towards Suriati by reporting her financial status, CTOS has caused her to suffer a loss.
  
  
• Aggrieved by the decision, CTOS filed an appeal.