1. ) Lee Chee Boon 2. ) Tang Ser Chiew 3. ) JOHN HENRY LOUIS 4. ) MESSRS JOHN & ASSOCIATES v 1. ) Ooh Tong Hai 2. ) Goh Hui Li 3. ) Hee Yan Choong 4. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK NEGERI SELANGOR 5. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR 6. ) SAHILA BINTI MOHAMAD SAJARI 7. ) NORAZILA BINTI ARIFFIN 8. ) NURUL ASHIKIN BINTI AHMAD ISA 9. ) SEETA NAKISHA BINTI MOHD RAZALI 10. ) NORIDAH BINTI SHA'ARI 11. ) AHMAD SUAIDI BIN ABDUL RAHIM

Case Significance

Affirms that a fraudulent transfer of land confers no good title and that individuals and professional advisers who participate in or facilitate the fraud may be held liable to the defrauded proprietor, upholding the High Court's findings of complicity.

This Court of Appeal decision, heard together with a related appeal, arises from the same land fraud and concerns the liability of those alleged to have been complicit in the fraudulent transfer of a proprietor's land. In the High Court at Pulau Pinang the land of the true proprietor had been found to have been fraudulently transferred to two transferees, and the High Court held a group of individuals and a firm of solicitors complicit in the fraudulent transaction, alongside its findings against the land registration authorities. In this appeal those individuals and the firm of solicitors challenged the findings of complicity made against them. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence and the High Court's reasoning on how the fraudulent transfer had been carried out and the roles played by the various participants, and upheld the High Court's conclusions. It agreed that the appellants had been party to, or had facilitated, the fraudulent transaction by which the proprietor's land was transferred without his true consent, and that their involvement justified the liability the High Court had imposed. In doing so the Court reaffirmed that a fraudulent transfer cannot confer good title and that those who participate in or facilitate such a fraud, including professional advisers who lend their services to it, may be held accountable for the loss caused to the defrauded owner. Finding no basis to disturb the High Court's careful findings on the facts, the Court dismissed the appeal and left the findings of complicity and the consequential liability undisturbed. The decision reinforces that indefeasibility of title under the National Land Code does not protect a transfer procured by fraud, and that the several actors who bring such a transfer about — whether by executing or facilitating the instruments, by ignoring obvious irregularities, or by lending professional respectability to the transaction — share responsibility for restoring the defrauded owner. The appellate court's refusal to disturb the trial court's factual findings also reflects the deference owed to a judge who has seen and heard the witnesses.