Aliza Sulaiman J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

[1]This was an application for judicial review by the Applicants (encl. 1) following the incident where their accounts with the 2nd Respondent (‘R2’) and 3rd Respondent (‘R3’) were frozen for suspicion of being involved in illicit activities, leading to the filing of an official complaint with the 1st Respondent (‘R1’). However, the Applicants claimed that R1 failed to respond to the complaint when, among others, they have a legitimate expectation that the Respondents will not act unfairly by refusing to decide or investigate the complaint.

[2]The 15th Applicant and the 40th Applicant in the list which was enclosed as ANNEXURE A to the Application for Judicial Review dated 29.4.2022 (encl. 1) and the Statement pursuant to O. 53, r. 3(2)Rules of Court 2012RC 2012’) (encl. 2) had withdrawn from the application vide the Notices of Withdrawal dated 26.5.2022 (encls. 5 and 4, respectively).

[3]Leave to commence judicial review proceedings was granted for the remaining Applicants on 21.6.2022.

[4]On 1.7.2022, the parties who are now named as R2 and R3 had filed their application to intervene and oppose the application for judicial review. The High Court had dismissed the proposed interveners’ application but the decision was subsequently reversed by the Court of Appeal.

[5]After having considered the cause papers and written submissions of the parties, I had dismissed the Applicants’ application.

[6]These are my full grounds of judgment.

Salient Facts

[7]The Applicants have bank accounts with R2 and R3 (‘Applicants’ Accounts’) for personal and business purposes such as loan repayments, insurance payments, income tax payments, payments to suppliers and employees and wedding financing.

[8]Between January to February 2022, the Applicants’ accounts were frozen or earmarked without prior notification or warning to the Applicants (‘Incident’). Consequently, the Applicants were temporarily restricted from accessing or using the funds in their respective accounts.

[9]R2 and R3 provided an explanation for the Incident, namely that –

(a)there was a processing error related to a specific third-party financial remittance service that led to transfers made to customers being made twice;

(b)as a result of the above, customers received double the total amount of funds; and

(c)in line with their banking practice, they had placed a hold and earmarked the duplicate amount that was processed to recover the payments mistakenly made to customers.

[10]The Applicants were not satisfied with the explanation and, through their solicitors, issued the Letters of Demands to R2 and R3 dated 14.2.2022, 25.2.2022 and 4.3.2022 (‘LoD’). The LoD were copied to R1.

[11]In the LoD, the Applicants’ alleged that R2 and R3 had breached the Terms and Conditions of Savings Account or Current Account (‘T&C of Accounts’) and demanded, amongst others, that the Applicants’ Accounts be immediately released and discharged from any freezing or earmarking and for monetary compensation of RM1 million.

[12]In February 2022, when R1 was informed of the double crediting of funds by R2 and R3 into their customers’ accounts which resulted in the Incident, R1 sought R2’s and R3’s explanation and R1 was made to understand that –

(a)the Incident was a contractual issue on the T&C of Accounts; and

(b)the Applicants have filed a civil action against R2 and R3 [these are Civil Suit Nos. WA-22NCVC-84-02/2022 and WA-22NCVC-137-04/2022 (‘Civil Suits’)].

[13]On 4.3.2022, the Applicants issued a LoD to R1 requesting for the following information to be provided to them:

(a)whether R1, through the relevant departments, have conducted an investigation or taken supervisory action against R2 and R3 –

(i)for the purported erroneous double crediting;

(ii)for any possible offences and contravention with provisions in the Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 758] (‘FSA’), Islamic Financial Services Act 2013 [Act 759] (‘IFSA’) and other related policy documents and legal instruments under the pur