JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is a claim by the Estate of Ng Choon Luk @ Ng Choon Lak (deceased), brought through the Administrator Ng Yok Kwang ("plaintiff"), against CIMB Bank Berhad ("the defendant") for negligence and breach of banking duty arising from unauthorised ATM withdrawals and MEPS fund transfers from the deceased's current account.

[2] The trial was conducted on 22 December 2025 where 1 witness testified for each party. i.e. SP1 for the plaintiff and SD1 (Noorhisham bin Ismail, Customer Service Manager) for the defendant. Parties filed their written submissions and bundle of authorities and the court now delivers its decision.

Background

[3] The following facts were agreed between the parties pursuant to encl 12:

(a) The deceased was a CIMB Preferred Customer holding Current Account No 8006170118;

(b) As at 21 June 2022, the account balance was RM536,563.19;

(c) The deceased's cheque for RM10,865.10 was dishonoured on 13 July 2022 due to insufficient funds;

(d) A police report was lodged on 14 July 2022. The Defendant received the police report around 18 July 2022;

(e) A notice of demand for RM545,000.00 was issued by the plaintiff's solicitors on 23 November 2022; and

(f) On 8 December 2022, the defendant requested time to investigate the claim.

[4] Between 24 June 2022 and 7 July 2022 (14 consecutive days), the following withdrawals were effected from the deceased's account via ATM cash withdrawals and MEPS fund transfers:

[5] It is undisputed that this pattern of withdrawals, approximately RM40,000.00 per day for 14 consecutive days via ATM and MEPS, was dramatically different from the deceased's established transaction profile over 30 years as a Preferred Customer. SD1 confirmed that the deceased's normal usage consisted primarily of cheque payments and JomPay utility transactions, with minimal ATM or MEPS activity prior to June 2022.

The Plaintiff's Case

[6] The plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the Statement of Claim and elaborated in Written Submissions (encl 35) and Reply Submissions (encl 47), is founded primarily on the Quincecare duty. This duty, derived from Barclays Bank plc v. Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 and recognised in Malaysia in Public Bank Berhad & Anor v. Exporaya Sdn Bhd; [2013] 1 MLJ 507; [2013] 2 CLJ 753; [2013] 1 AMCR 191, imposes an implied duty on banks to refrain from executing a customer's order when the bank is "put on inquiry" that the transaction may be fraudulent.

[7] The plaintiff contends that the defendant was "put on inquiry" by the following circumstances:

(a) 14 consecutive days of unusual withdrawals totalling RM529,774.79;

(b) daily withdrawals of approximately RM40,000.00, representing the maximum daily limits;

(c) a sudden and dramatic shift from the deceased's established pattern of cheques and JomPay to high-volume ATM/MEPS withdrawals;

(d) the deceased was an 85-year-old vulnerable customer whose profile was well known to the Bank over 30 years.

[8] The Plaintiff further relies on:

(a) the defendant's own Terms and Conditions, specifically cl 21.1(iv) of the Current Account T&C, which empowers the defendant to freeze an account upon suspicion of fraudulent activities or when a police report is lodged;

(b) Clause 13.2(c) of the Mastercard T&C, which permits termination of card use if suspicious or abnormal transactions are detected;

(c) SD1's admissions at trial that the defendant has fraud detection systems but took no protective steps during the 14-day fraud period;

(d) the Singapore court of Appeal decision in Hsu Ann Mei Amy (Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Hwang Cheng Tsu Hsu, Deceased) v. Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2011] SGCA 3, for the proposition that banks may be put on notice when dealing with elderly or infirm customers susceptible to third-party pressure.

[9] The Plaintiff concedes RM120,000.00 (representing the first three days' withdrawals from 24-26 June 2022) as the deceased's contributory negligence, on the basis that the bank could not