The appropriate standard of proof for civil cases alleging fraud is 'balance of probabilities', not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

[1] For convenience, in this judgment, unless otherwise stated, the parties are referred to as they were at the High Court. The 1st and 2nd appellants are referred to as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs or collectively as 'the plaintiffs'. As for the respondents, Ding Siew Ching, Golden Star, Ding Toh Biew, Ding Toh Gien and Ding Toh Lei are referred to individually as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants respectively or collectively as 'the defendants'.

[2] On 18 August 2006, the plaintiffs commenced an action against the five defendants for, inter alia, (i) an order to declare that the sale and purchase agreements of three pieces of properties, and the tenancy agreements and transfers of those properties, were null and void and (ii) damages against the 1st defendant for failure to exercise reasonable professional care, skills and diligence (the main suit - Suit 203).

[3] The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants then filed a claim against the 1st plaintiff in 2008, for injunction and damages for trespass (Suit 45).

[4] Suit 203 and Suit 45 were consolidated on 24 February 2010. Suit 203 was allowed by the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC). Hence, the sale and purchase agreement (S&P) and transfers of the three properties were declared null and void. Suit 45 was dismissed.

[5] The defendants were aggrieved by the High Court's decision and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Upon hearing the parties and after perusing the Appeal Records, the defendants' appeal was allowed with costs.

[6] The appellants successfully obtained leave to appeal to this Court on 28 March 2016 on the following Questions ('Leave Questions'):-

i. Whether in the light of the recent Federal Court of Malaysia's decision in Sinnaiyah & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Damai Setia Sdn Bhd, ; [2015] AMEJ 1213, the Court of Appeal was right in adopting Beyond Reasonable Doubt as the standard of proof for civil claim?; and

ii. Whether Irresistible Conclusion is not the same as Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

[7] Appeal to this Court centred against the decision of the High Court allowing Suit 203 and the consequential orders made thereon and on the dismissal of Suit 45.

Background Facts

[8] The 1st plaintiff was the registered owner of a shop house at No 59, Taman Ilmu, Setiawan (No 59 Shophouse) and two pieces of agricultural land located at Kg Selamat (Kg Selamat Properties). These properties will collectively be referred to as the 'Three Properties'. The 2nd plaintiff is the 1st plaintiff 's son.

[9] The 1st defendant is an advocate and solicitor practising in Messrs Ding & Co in Setiawan, Perak. The 2nd defendant is a licensed money lending company while the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are partners of the 2nd defendant. The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants are siblings.

[10] In 1995, the 1st plaintiff obtained a loan facility of RM590,000.00 from Hong Leong Bank Berhad (HLBB) and charged the Three Properties and his house at No 27, Jalan Raja Omar (Jalan Raja Omar Property) as securities for the loan.

[11] In mid-1996, the 1st plaintiff approached the 2nd defendant's office for a loan, through the 3rd defendant. For the purpose of the loan, the 1st plaintiff was asked to furnish original copy of title documents of the Three Properties and was informed that the 2nd defendant had the right to keep those title documents until the 1st plaintiff fully paid his loans. The 1st plaintiff was also asked to sign a stack of documents and to pay RM150.00 as legal fees. The 3rd defendant represented to the 1st plaintiff that those documents and the legal fees were for the loan obtained from the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant then issued a RM5,000.00 cheque to the 1st plaintiff. Interest on the loan was agreed at 4% per month. The 1st plaintiff took a few more loans from the 2nd defe