Peh Swee Chin SCJ:

[1] At the conclusion of the hearing of arguments, we have allowed the appeal herein, indicating that we would give our reasons in writing, and now we hereby do so.

[2] The appellant/defendant, a foreign bank, has been carrying on business, at all material times, in the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter called the foreign bank) and the respondents/plaintiffs were customers of the foreign bank in connection with foreign exchange dealings or transactions, (hereinafter called the bank customers).

[3] To summarize, the statement of claim of the bank customers in the notice of writ of summons, alleged that bank customers were hopeful that the foreign bank would assist them in their foreign exchange transactions. The foreign bank being also a foreign exchange dealer allegedly promised to do everything possible to so assist the bank customers in such transactions, and both parties then entered into two agreements both dated 20 October 1992 under the respective titles of "Foreign Exchange, Metal and Option Agreement" and "Securities Services Agreement".

[4] The statement of claim alleged further in effect that the bank customers gave instructions from Kuala Lumpur f