KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 16): The Johor Bahru High Court has reinstated a lawsuit filed by a Maybank customer who lost nearly RM60,000 in allegedly unauthorised online transfers after scanning a third-party QR code, ruling that the dispute must proceed to a full trial.
Judicial Commissioner Noradura Hamzah ruled that the Sessions Court erred when it struck out the suit by Wong Bair Lim, 57, in November 2025.
In a 23-page written judgement dated April 2, Noradura observed that the Sessions Court judge had made her decision on alleged findings of facts that were actually in dispute, and that the matter should have gone to trial.
“Specifically the Sessions [Court] judge decided that the transactions originated from the claimant’s software, and that she had approved the transaction through the Maybank2u portal, that the system was secure, and that her losses were a result of her own negligence.
“All these issues of facts have been disputed by the claimant. This [High Court] is of the view that there are material facts that are disputed and this cannot be resolved by the application to strike out the case without going for a full trial,” the JC said.
The court highlighted several critical questions that require witness testimony and cross-examination:
- whether the claimant personally accessed the system (Maybank2u) and authorised the transfers, or whether they were executed by a third party without her knowledge
- whether the daily transfer limit had been raised from RM2,000 to RM60,000 by the claimant herself or by an unauthorised person
- whether the secure2u verification prompts were requsted by and received by the claimant, as claimed by the bank, or whether it was done via a third party without her knowledge
- whether the IP address in those transactions can be definitively traced back to her to prove she had accessed the banking system for those transactions
Noradura also noted that Wong did not accuse the bank of orchestrating the fraud but alleged third-party online fraud.
When serious discrepancies in material facts arise, they can only be properly resolved through cross-examination of witnesses during a trial, the JC said, citing a Federal Court precedent.
Digital evidence requires strict scrutiny
On the digital evidence relied on by the Sessions Court judge — including phone logs, IP addresses and transaction histories — Noradura held that the records require strict proof under Section 90A, 90B and 90C of the Evidence Act 1950, as well as independent expert testimony.
“Digital evidence is so fragile and can be easily manipulated. Hence, the issue of the digital evidence being original and trustworthy is important and needed to be tested in a trial,” she said.
Hence, she concluded that the lower court had erred in dismissing the claim under Order 18, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 — which grants the court the power to dismiss a claim or defence at an early stage without hearing full oral evidence or cross-examining witnesses at trial if certain criteria are met.
In doing so, she ordered the case be remitted back to the Sessions Court for hearing.
She also ordered Maybank to pay costs of RM8,000 to Wong.
Case background
In November 2025, Sessions Court judge Lailawati Ali struck out the claim following an application by Maybank, based solely on affidavit findings.
In her 16-page grounds, the judge described the suit as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process, and concluded it was filed merely to cause embarassment and difficulty for the bank.
According to Wong, she discovered on July 13, 2024 that RM59,867.61 had been transferred out of her account without her consent or knowledge.
Within an eight-minute window — between 1.44pm and 1.52pm — five separate transfers ranging from RM9,829.31 and RM17,500 were transferred from her accounts via BigPay Malaysia, another domestic bank, and GX Bank. She contacted Maybank the same day after discovering her losses.
Maybank countered that its internal investigations showed the transactions originated from her account via the Maybank2u application. According to the bank, Wong had admitted to scanning a third-party QR code for a purchase, after which her phone screen abruptly went blank while the transfers occurred.
In the High Court proceedings, Wong was represented by Lim Pang Kiat and Fung Yu Qi of Messrs Pang Kiat, Yu Qi Law Chambers. Maybank was represented by Tengku Nazihah Hanis Tengku Abd Nawawi of Messrs Sidek Teoh Wong & Dennis.