PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has upheld a ruling by the Court of Appeal that found Public Bank in breach of its statutory duty and confidentiality obligations, following the unauthorised disclosure of banking information belonging to the National Feedlot Corporation (NFC) and three affiliated entities.
In a unanimous decision, the three-member bench led by Chief Judge of Malaya, Datuk Mohd Zabidin Mohd Diah, dismissed Public Bank’s appeal, affirming the appellate court’s earlier finding that the bank had violated banking secrecy laws.
The apex court ruled that common law did not apply in this case due to the specific provisions outlined under the Civil Law Act 1956. As a result, NFC, along with its chairman Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Salleh Ismail and subsidiaries National Meat & Livestock Corporation Sdn Bhd and Agroscience Industries Sdn Bhd, have cleared a major legal hurdle in their pursuit of compensation.
While the court has yet to determine the final quantum of damages, it has allowed the plaintiffs to appeal a previous award of only RM10,000 in nominal damages. The matter will be heard on 18 June, when the Federal Court is expected to rule on the plaintiffs’ claim for RM560 million—comprising RM60 million in general damages, RM250 million in aggravated damages, and RM250 million in exemplary damages.
The court also awarded RM300,000 in legal costs to NFC and the other appellants.
The case dates back to 2012, when confidential banking records were allegedly leaked by Public Bank to then opposition lawmaker Rafizi Ramli, who used the information to support allegations of financial mismanagement involving a government loan tied to the purchase of high-end properties.
Public Bank’s legal team maintained that only minimal damages were warranted, arguing that the financial expert supporting NFC’s claim was discredited in earlier proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal in 2023 concluded that the High Court had misinterpreted key evidence, warranting intervention on the issue of liability—though it initially limited the damages due to insufficient proof of actual financial loss.
The Federal Court’s ruling marks a significant development in a high-profile corporate case with implications for banking confidentiality, corporate accountability, and data protection.–FMT
