Case Update: Suriati binti Mohd Yusof v CTOS Data Systems Sdn Bhd
Brief Facts:
The Plaintiff was at the material time the director and shareholder of a resort company and claimed against the Defendant for damages suffered as a result of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty with regards to misrepresentation on her credit rating which led to her loss of reputation, personal losses as well as business losses. The Defendant is empowered by the Credit Reporting Agencies Act 2010 (“CRA 2010“) to collate credit reports from various sources for purposes of dissemination to subscribers. In this case the Defendant has classified the Plaintiff as a serious delinquent and as a result of that her loan application for a car was rejected.
The Defendant contends that among others, such information was given with the Plaintiff’s consent and the Defendant has no duty to verify its accuracy.
Decision:
The High Court ruled that, among others: –
- Section 29 of the CRA 2010 imposes duty upon the Defendant to ensure the accuracy of the credit report and such duty extends not only to financial institutions but also to persons concerned against whom the information was related to.
- The Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to suspend the information awaiting verification even after being alerted by Plaintiff on its inaccuracy.
- The Defendant has no power and in fact, has gone beyond its statutory functions by creating its own criteria or percentage to formulate a credit score. Such criteria includes payment history, amount owed, credit history length, credit mix and new credit, which are used to classify the credit status of a person.
- The Plaintiff was granted RM200,000 as general damages and RM50,000 costs.
WHAT’S NEXT?
Any person who is aggrieved and affected by the information collated by CTOS could verify with CTOS and update the record in due course.
At this point, the decision is pending appeal before the Court of Appeal.