1. ) DATO' DR FATHUL BARI BIN MAT JAHYA 2. ) SEKH MOHD FAZZLI BIN SEKH MOHD RUZI 3. ) WAN AZIZUL BIN WAN YUSOFF v KRS TRAVEL SDN BHD

wa-12bncc-6-03-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 December 2025 • WA-12BNCC-6-03/2025 • 14 min read

5 cases cited (0 SG, 5 foreign)

Catchwords

Fraud unravels everything-“No court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he had obtained by fraud. … Fraud unravels everything…”-business of arranging Umrah and Hajj services for Malaysian pilgrims to the holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia-defendants were directors and shareholders-Covid-19 pandemic-registration was struck off-section 550 of the Companies Act 2016-An appellate court without good reasons should not interfere with the findings of fact of the trial judge-[26] …the prime issue is whether the Court of Appeal had erred in interfering with the findings of facts of the trial judge. It is well settled law that an appellate court will not generally speaking, intervene with the decision of a trial court unless the trial court is shown to be plainly wrong in arriving at its decision. A plainly wrong decision happens when the trial court is guilty of no or insufficient judicial appreciation of evidence-ii. There subsists a long line of authority over the years in Malaysia, which recognises that fraud, whether common law fraud or fraud in equity, permits the court to disregard the corporate personality. This body of law took its line of reasoning from the ‘fraud unravels all’ principle. Once the company was utilised as a vehicle for dishonest conduct, or fraud, or unconscionable conduct, it was only correct that a court look behind the facade to ascertain the true facts and also impose liability against the persons perpetrating such wrongdoing as was required on the facts of a particular case-iii. Liability can be found against the directors and the company by reason of fraud alone, without the need to invoke the doctrine of the piercing of the corporate veil. In other words, the ability of a court to unravel transactions by reason of fraud is independent of the doctrine of piercing the veil.

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (4)

Bishan & Partners Firm Shahrul Hamidi & Haziq Firm Mohd Shahril bin Madisa Counsel Appellant Teoh Bi Shan Counsel Respondent

Parties (4)

KRS TRAVEL Sdn Bhd Respondent Dato' Dr Fathul Bari bin Mat Jahya Appellant Sekh Mohd Fazzli bin Sekh Mohd Ruzi Appellant Wan Azizul bin Wan Yusoff Appellant

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

s 550

Cases Cited (5)

UK (2)

[1956] 1 All ER 341 [2013] 1 WLR 2477

MY (3)

[1975] 2 MLJ 117 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2021] MLJU 393

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-12bncc-6-03-2025)