My late buddy and practically blood brother Allahyarham Zakhir Mohamed initiated an expose on Sime Darby 16 years ago entitled: Sime Scandal?" with regard to Sime Engineering on February 5th 2009.
By May 2010, Zakhir managed to pressure the then Chairman, statesman, and fellow Johorean Tun Musa Hitam into a corner till Sime Darby could not wiggle themselves out of the corporate blue blood embarassment of announcing the absence of leave for Group CEO Dato’ Seri Ahmad Zubir Mursyid.
After 15 months of barking, Zakhir practically slaughtered Sime Darby. Another Brick in the Wall was barking along through the time. [Go to the blog via VPN and search for "Sime Darby Qatar".] Rocky Bru too. The good ole days of blogging.
Yesterday July 14th, 2025, and 15 years later and after his demise in 2022, hope Zakhir could proudly say in heaven up there, "I was right!" He did good and Zubir and the gang lost a civil lawsuit and had to return back public money lost.
Edge Online reported:
Ex-Sime Darby CEO, four other senior execs ordered to pay over RM350 mil as restitution for company's losses
By Hafiz Yatim / theedgemalaysia.com
14 Jul 2025, 01:46 pm
Updated - 08:57 pm
KUALA LUMPUR (July 14): The High Court on Monday has ordered former group chief executive of Sime Darby Bhd Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubair @ Ahmad Zubir Murshid and four former senior executives of the company to jointly and severally pay over RM350 million in multiple currencies as restitution for wrongful payments made to consultants in Sime Darby’s Qatar Petroleum Project.
Besides Ahmad Zubir, the other four former senior executives named as defendants who are to pay the sum jointly or severally liable are the group’s former executive vice president of the energy and utilities (E&U) division, Datuk Mohamad Shukri Baharom; former chief financial officer of the group’s E&U, Abdul Rahim Ismail; former head of the oil & gas business unit of the E&U, Abdul Kadir Alias; and former senior general manager of Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd, Mohd Zaki Othman.
To be jointly or severally liable means that each defendant named under an order is responsible for paying off the debt either individually or as a group. If anyone is unable to pay, the rest must shoulder the burden until the debt is paid.
The five men are jointly and severally liable to pay Qatari Riyal 67.811 million (RM79.235 million), US$2.049 million (RM8.714 million), and RM1.725 million to Sime Darby Bhd and four of its subsidiaries.
High Court judge Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad also ordered them to pay additional sums for admissions regarding liability for consultant payments and related losses across the Maersk Oil Qatar Project (MOQ) and the project marine over three vessel acquisitions almost 20 years ago.
In addition to the earlier sum, all five men have been ordered to jointly or severally pay US$27.176 million (RM115.585 million).
Abdul Zubir and Shukri are ordered to jointly and severally pay another US$33.132 million (RM140.916 million) and SG$281,331.11 (RM934,214.00).
And besides the sums already mentioned, Shukri, Abdul Rahim, Abdul Kadir, and Mohd Zaki are required to jointly and severally pay RM6.21 million.
The action was brought against them by Sime Darby Bhd and its subsidiaries Sime Darby Engineering Sdn Bhd, Sime Darby Energy Sdn Bhd, Sime Darby Marine Sdn Bhd, and Sime Darby Marine (Hong Kong) Pte Ltd.
Sime Darby and its subsidiaries filed the suit in 2010 for purported indemnity on them following losses to three projects under its E&U division that had suffered massive cost overruns.
The three projects are the Qatar Petroleum (QP) project, the Maersk Oil Qatar project (MOQ) and Project Marine, which relates to the construction of marine vessels.
Assessment of damages following consent judgement 11 years back
Atan Mustaffa in his broad grounds said the assessment proceedings for the decision on Monday arose from an interlocutory consent judgement on June 13, 2014, where all five defendants made admissions regarding liability for consultant payments and related losses across multiple oil and gas projects.
“Hence, the issues before this court concern the quantum of damages flowing from these admissions.
“The present assessment proceedings arise in circumstances that distinguish this case from typical assessment proceedings conducted after trial. The defendants have, through the consent judgement, made admissions that extend beyond mere acknowledgment of liability, creating a legal landscape that affects the nature and scope of the assessment exercise before this court,” he said in proceedings online.
The judge said the defendants' admissions extend beyond the quantum of claims made by the companies and encompass the underlying factual matrix giving rise to liability.
“This comprehensive admission includes the underlying facts, giving rise to the claims, the defendants’ breach of duties, and wrongful acts as specifically pleaded, and the consequences arising from it.
“The admission of liability for ‘wrongful payments’ to consultants carries profound legal consequences. Where a defendant admits that payments were ‘wrongfully’ made, this constitutes an admission that such payments should not have been made and were causally connected to the defendant's breach of duty,” Atan Mustaffa said.
Following the consent judgement which amounted to an admission, the plaintiffs’ burden, the judge said, is narrowly circumscribed to establishing the quantum of losses claimed.
He said that as the court determined in dismissing the discovery application: “Given the admissions of liability, the only issue is whether the companies or the plaintiffs can prove the quantum of losses as claimed.
“The plaintiffs are not required to prove causation in the traditional sense, as the causal nexus between the defendants' wrongful acts and the losses has been conclusively established through the admissions. Similarly, issues of remoteness and mitigation cannot be raised to challenge the quantum where the defendants have admitted the wrongful nature of specific payments,” he added.
Dismissing defendants’ objection
Atan Mustaffa said despite the consent judgement, the defendants have persistently attempted to re-litigate liability issues through various procedural mechanisms in a bid to reduce the quantum.
“These attempts have been consistently rejected by this court as constituting an abuse of process. The defendants cannot be permitted to challenge the quantum through the back door of raising liability-related arguments.
“Any such attempt runs counter to the clear terms of the consent judgement and ignores the settled jurisprudence that liability issues are conclusively determined.
The judge added that the defendants are estopped from challenging the quantum of payments, given their comprehensive admissions in the consent judgment.
“Having admitted that consultants were wrongfully appointed, and payments wrongfully made, the defendants cannot now scrutinise individual invoices or payment mechanics. Such attempts constitute an impermissible effort to undermine previously admitted liability and would render the consent judgement meaningless.
“The consent judgement's comprehensive admissions, combined with cogent evidence of the quantum, mandates recovery of the full amount claimed. The defendants' attempts to re-litigate liability through quantum challenges are rejected as contrary to established principles of estoppel and res judicata,” the judge said.
Res judicata is a Latin term that literally translates to 'a matter judged'. In legal terms, it is a doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue or claim that has already been finally decided by a competent court.
In the principle of estoppel, one party is prevented from raising the same issues that have already been adjudicated.
In ordering the sum, Atan Mustaffa said the companies are permitted to levy execution on this final judgement on recovering the claims from the respective employers of the Qatar Petroleum Project, the Maersk Oil Qatar Project, and proceeds of the same to Project Marine, or after the expiry of three years from the date of this final judgement.
Counsels Alexius Lee and Rhosvin Singh appeared for Sime Darby and its subsidiaries, while Shaarvin Raj and Craig Ho appeared for Ahmad Zubir.
Lawyer Ranjinny Andy appeared for Shukri, Jasmin Raj represented Abdul Rahim, and Harvinder Singh Sidhu appeared for Abdul Kadir and Mohd Zaki.
Read on here to other links.
Alhamdulillah. May Allah reward Zakhir's soul for his amar makruf nahi mungkar effort in the temporal world with everlasting peace and tranquility.
No comments:
Post a Comment