Back
2011 MarsdenLR 3254
HIGH COURT MALAYA, JOHOR BAHRU
KHATIJAH AHMAD – Appellant
Versus
CIMB BANK BERHAD – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22-348-2010]
A bank owes a duty of care to a customer in processing and disbursing loans, and negligence in fulfilling this duty can lead to liability for damages.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Section 101 - Negligence - The plaintiff claimed damages for negligence against the defendant regarding a loan facility for purchasing property which was not disbursed on time, resulting in forfeiture of deposit. The plaintiff alleged promises made by the loan officer were unfulfilled. (Paras 11-18)
(B) Duty of Care - Established that the defendant, as a bank, had a duty to process and disburse the loan promptly, failing which led to the plaintiff suffering losses. (Paras 19-30)
(C) Breach of Duty - The court found the defendant was negligent due to delays in processing the loan, despite awareness of the plaintiff's urgent needs. (Paras 28-30)
(D) Remoteness of Damages - The court ruled that while certain claims for damages were too remote, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the forfeited deposit. (Paras 33-34) (E) Appeal - The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and she failed to provide corroborative evidence of the bank's alleged promises. (Para 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim of negligence and loan process. (Para 1 , 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. facts regarding loan agreement and purchase details. (Para 3) |
[1] The plaintiff is claiming damages against the defendant for negligence arising out of a loan facility granted by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Brief Account Of The Facts
[2] On 16 August 2006, the plaintiff purchased a piece of land together with an abandoned and incomplete detached house erected thereon ('the Auction Property') at a public auction at the Johor Bahru High Court for RM82, 000.00. The plaintiff paid a deposit of RM8, 200.00 ('the Deposit'). Under the Memorandum of Contract, the balance of RM73, 800.00 was to be paid within 120 days from the date of sale; which date falls on 15 December 2006 ('the Completion Date').
[3] On 25 August 2006, the plaintiff applied for a loan from the defendant to finance the purchase of the Property. On 30 August 2006, the defendant issued a letter of offer approving a Flexi Loan Facility loan of RM102, 519.00 ('the Loan') to the plaintiff and her son ('Asyraf '). The Loan was a refinancing facility created and secured over the plaintiff's property in Kinta Perak ('the Kinta Property'). On 5 September 2006, the plaintiff and Asyraf accepted and signed the letter of offer. The Loan was disbursed to the plaintiff on 20 December 2006; five days after the Completion date.
[4] The plaintiff's application for an extension of the Completion date was refused. Consequently, the deposit was forfeited and the Memorandum of Contract was terminated.
