[1] The principal question in this case is whether the plaintiff bank owed a duty of care to the defendant to adequately insure as well as to advice and alert the defendant of the terms and proviso of the Takaful burglary policy which the plaintiff took out on behalf of the defendant.

[2] The relationship of plaintiff and defendant arose in the following manner:

2.1 The plaintiff bank granted the defendant various loan facilities to, inter alia, fund the purchase of machinery and equipment for the purpose of expanding the defendants business of manufacturing stainless steel butt weld pipe fittings in Malaysia.

2.2 The machinery and equipment were purchased and imported from Germany.

2.3 As they were Islamic loans, the defendant simultaneously executed a purchase agreement and a sale agreement whereby the machinery and equipment needed to put up the new plant was purchased by the plaintiff and then immediately sold back to the defendant, the price difference being the profit payable for the entire term of the loan.

2.4 The defendant simultaneously executed a Sale Agreement and Purchase Agreement both dated 2 Jun 2003,