Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CORPORATE LAW – PIERICING OF CORPORATE VEIL – SUING DIRECTORS – FRAUD and CONSPIRACY

Can directors be sued for breaches by the company?

  • Generally, a director who authorises a company’s breach of contract is not personally liable unless he conducts himself otherwise than as the company’s agent. For example, when there is fraud and conspiracy.

What is conspiracy?

  • Conspiracy is an agreement between 2 or more person to advance the purpose to injure the plaintif. Action is then carried out in execution of the agreement. This would have resulted in loss and damage to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can sue for conspiracy.

What is fraud?

  • Fraud entails representation. It is also known in law as fraudulent misrepresentation. When someone made representation knowing that is it not true, that’s fraudulent misrepresentation. In layman term, it is called cheating. You can claim against someone who had cheated you.

If a company refuses to pay me, can I sue the director for fraud and conspiracy

  • A company is a separate entity from its shareholders and directors. Generally, no liability can be imposed on directors for contractual breaches of the company.
  • However, there is a growing English and Singapore case laws that use the law of conspiracy and fraud to make shareholders and directors liable. Fraud and conspiracy can be used to “pierce the corporate veil” and make shareholders and directors responsible.

Under what circumstances can director and shareholders be made personally liable for fraud?

For example, A Sdn Bhd recently received a Notice for Winding Up from Z. However, the director of A Sdn Bhd cheated Z saying they will pay. But he had secretly transfer out assets of A Sdn Bhd to B Sdn Bhd. B Sdn Bhd is a related company of which they have the same directors and shareholders. This is to prevent Z from getting his payment under a lawful execution proceeding. Under this circumstance, the director of A Sdn Bhd can be made liable for fraud and conspiracy to defraud.

Can I claim the director is the controlling mind or alter ego of the company and therefore they can combine together with the company to defraud me when the company refuses to pay me a contractual payment?

General statement saying director is the alter ego, controlling mind of the company is not enough to establish fraud and conspiracy to defraud. This is insufficient to lift the corporate veil to hold directors personally liable. This is especially if the director of the company was merely acting bona fide in discharging its duty to the company as director.

What is tantamount to fraud and conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们