The court emphasized the banker’s duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in executing customer orders, establishing the negligence of the respondent.

[1] The proceedings before the High Court were bifurcated with the direction that in the event of a finding of liability in favour of the appellant who was the plaintiff at the High Court, the assessment of damages would be conducted by the Registrar. After a full trial, the learned judge dismissed the claim; hence the appeal.

[2] Upon hearing respective counsel and upon careful consideration of their written and oral submissions together with the records of appeal, we unanimously allowed the appeal. These are our reasons in full.

Factual Matrix

[3] The appellant is in the business of selling, dealing, distributing and marketing orthodontic products manufactured and supplied by Clearpath Trading & Manufacturing & Co ("Principal"), a company incorporated under the laws of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The appellant is in fact the sole and exclusive distributor for the Principals orthodontic products for the region of Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand. The appellants customers included dental practitioners and the general public in these countries.

[4] The appellant was a customer of the respondent. It opened and maintained a current account at the respondents KLCC branch for the purpose of its business [current account].

[5] The appellants claim against the respondent is in respect of two remittances by telegraphic transfers sent from its current account to the Principals bank account in Dubai. In essence, the appellant claimed that the respondent was negligent and/or in breach of contract when it inter alia delayed in affecting these remittances and that such delay led to the termination of its contract with the Principal, thereby causing the appellant loss and damage to both its business and its reputation.

[6] This is what happened, as discerned from the Amended Statement of Claim.

[7] On 9 October 2015, the appellant instructed the respondent to remit USD5,750.00 [October Payment] to its Principals bank account at Dubai Islamic Bank UAE bearing certain account and IBAN numbers vide application for remittance form dated 1 October 2015. The application for remittance form was as prepared by the respondent [Remittance Contract].

[8] By letter dated 22 October 2015, the appellant was informed by its Principal that it had failed to effect payment for the month of October. By that same letter, the Principal cautioned that any further delay of payment will disrupt future supply of Clearpath products to the appellant.

[9] Upon inquiring with the respondent on 5 November 2015, the appellant learnt that the October Payment was not effected by the respondent "due to an error in the entry of the IBAN No as stated in the remittance form". The appellant claimed that the respondent was in breach of its instruction to remit the October Payment and decided not to proceed with this remittance through the respondent. Instead, the appellant arranged for payment via another remittance through its account held with another bank, RHB. The respondent eventually returned the monies under the remittance into the appellants current account on 11 November 2015.

[10] The appellant alleged that the respondents failure to remit the October Payment timeously resulted in the Principal losing trust in the appellant. Be that as it may, on 17 December 2015, the appellant instructed the respondent to remit another sum of USD50,000.00 from its current account to the Principal [November & December Payments] vide application for remittance form dated 15 December 2015 [First Remittance].

[11] There was, however, a delay in this remittance; it was only transferred to the Principal in cleared funds on 7 January 2016. The appellant claimed that it was not aware of this delay until it received "another ala