JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] The main, if not the only issue in this appeal is whether the defendant was in breach of contract. The argument urged in support of the appeal is that the High Court's finding to the contrary is flawed. The facts out of which the dispute arose are fairly straight forward and in the main undisputed. Here they are.

[2] The plaintiff (appellant before us) was at all material times a customer of the defendant bank (the respondent before us). It was a member of a group of companies all of whom were also the defendant's customers. Indeed, it cannot be gain said that at all material times the defendant conducted itself towards all these companies as if they were one and the same entity with the defendant looking to the plaintiff as the "flagship" entity to settle any and all monies owed to the defendant by the other companies in the group. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant in breach of contract failed to make available to it funds that it had already promised to the former. In consequence of that breach the plaintiff's housing development, known as "the Taman Dangi project" could not be completed resulting in losses to the plaintiff.

[3] There is n