KUALA LUMPUR: The High Court yesterday fixed Oct 23 to rule on a shipping company’s bid to restrain RHB Bank Berhad from closing two of its long-standing accounts, pending the disposal of its full suit.
Judicial Commissioner Elesabet Paya Wan set the date after hearing submissions from P. Taneswaran, acting for Maritime Network Sdn Bhd, and the bank’s counsel, Gan Khong Aik.
Taneswaran submitted that the bank had failed to establish any breach of terms or requirements by the plaintiff, Maritime Network, that would justify closing its accounts.
He further argued that the bank owed Maritime Network both a fiduciary duty and a duty of care.
Gan countered that no fiduciary relationship or duty of care arose between the bank and the shipping company, submitting that the relationship between a bank and its customer was that of debtor and creditor.
In October last year, the High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining RHB from closing the two long-standing accounts, pending the hearing of the company’s application for a full injunction.
According to court documents, the company has held a multi-currency account and a current account with RHB since 2005.
On Oct 6, 2025, it received a termination notice dated Oct 1, 2025, stating that the bank intended to close both accounts and terminate all related services within 14 days, citing breaches of its internal policies and guidelines.
The company, however, claimed that RHB had failed to specify which policies or guidelines had allegedly been breached.
The plaintiff said an ongoing dispute over the accounts had earlier led to its pre-trial discovery application being dismissed by the High Court on July 2, 2025.
The company subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in December last year allowed its appeal against the dismissal of the pre-trial discovery application.
The appellate court then ordered RHB to produce its Minimum Due Diligence guidelines governing foreign exchange transactions to the company within 45 days.
Maritime Network further alleged that the bank’s vague allegations placed it in a position of uncertainty, depriving it of any opportunity to defend itself.
The company asserted that this conduct amounted to an abuse of power that prejudiced its rights.
It also claimed that the bank’s conduct demonstrated an intention to oppress rather than protect its legitimate banking interests.
