JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] This judgment concerns a dispute between a bank (the Plaintiff) and one of its customers (the Defendant) over the proper handling and accounting of the Defendant's investment accounts that were subject to anti-money laundering seizure orders. The key issues are whether the bank was required to continue crediting interest and other accretions to the seized accounts during the seizure period, and whether the Defendant's claim for such amounts is barred by res judicata or by the terms of a prior settlement agreement between the parties. The Defendant invested substantial sums through structured product accounts with the Plaintiff bank and also obtained lending facilities secured against those investments. However, in 2014 the Defendant's accounts were frozen pursuant to seizure orders issued under anti-money laundering laws while Malaysian authorities investigated suspected unlawful activities. This led to protracted litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant over the proper treatment of the seized accounts and the Defendant's outstanding loan obligations to the Plaintiff.

Background Facts

[2] Between December 2012 and March 2