Introduction
On 14 July 2025, a gavel fell in the Kuala Lumpur High Court—not with the usual formality of litigation, but with the weight of corporate history crashing down.
The judgment was clear: Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubair Murshid, the former group CEO of Sime Darby Berhad, along with four former senior executives, were jointly and severally liable to pay over RM350 million in restitution. The losses stemmed from wrongful payments and breaches of duty linked to three major oil and gas projects in Qatar. It was not just a decision; it was a reckoning, fifteen years in the making.
But to understand how we got here, we must go back to the beginning—before the courts, before the headlines, before the fall.
Genesis of a Crisis
The year was 2008. On paper, Sime Darby Berhad had just emerged from a high-profile merger. What was once a collection of plantation and engineering giants—Sime Darby, Guthrie, and Golden Hope—had been consolidated into a behemoth under the name of “Synergy Drive.” With the merger came pressure to show results. Ambition ran high, but so too did risks.
Within Sime’s Energy & Utilities (E&U) division, cracks began to show. Whispers of cost overruns on overseas projects began circulating. The Qatar Petroleum (QP) and Maersk Oil Qatar (MOQ) projects—initially presented as growth opportunities—were hemorrhaging funds. Meanwhile, internally, alarm bells were being rung by auditors. But these red flags were lost in a fog of corporate restructuring and optimism.
When Sime Darby’s internal auditors raised concerns, external auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed. Still, the division’s accounts weren’t qualified, and the matter was quietly set aside—overshadowed by the merger’s momentum. CFOs came and went. Accountability, it seemed, was in short supply.
A Board Awakens
It wasn’t until 2009, over a year later, that the board took real notice. In a rare move, then-chairman Tun Musa Hitam formed a work group to investigate the ballooning costs within the E&U division. That work group unearthed something staggering: nearly RM2 billion in cumulative losses from just four projects, including the infamous Bakun Dam and three Qatari contracts.
The public was stunned. A titan of Malaysian industry—once seen as too large to falter—was bleeding cash. On 13 May 2010, Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubair Murshid, the man at the helm, was asked to take a leave of absence. It was not a quiet resignation; it was a forced exit, a signal that Sime Darby was turning a page.
The question that followed was simple but painful: How did it go so wrong?
From Boardroom to Courtroom
In December 2010, Sime Darby filed two civil suits: one relating to the Bakun Dam, and another involving its oil and gas ventures. It sought to recover over RM430 million in losses. Zubair responded by trying to rope in Sime Darby’s own directors through third-party claims, perhaps suggesting that he was merely a cog in a flawed governance machine. But in 2011, the High Court struck out those third-party actions, calling them “frivolous and vexatious.”
The courtroom battles dragged on. In 2014, a turning point came when all five key defendants entered into a consent judgment, effectively admitting liability for wrongful payments and breaches of duty. The legal battlefield shifted: it was no longer about who was at fault, but how much damage had been done.
Restitution Ordered: A Judgment with Teeth
That answer came in July 2025. High Court Judge Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad, in a landmark decision, declared that the five defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay damages exceeding RM350 million. The court meticulously quantified the wrongful payments made to consultants and contractors involved in the Qatar projects and the marine vessel acquisitions.
The judge made it clear: the defendants’ admissions were sweeping. There was no room for them to later dispute individual invoices or hide behind the complexity of cross-border payments. Attempting to re-litigate liability through procedural backdoors, the court said, was an abuse of process.
In his broad grounds, the judge invoked the doctrines of estoppel and res judicata, both pillars of finality in civil litigation. These doctrines ensured that the admissions made in 2014 would not be undone. The damage was done. And now, it had a price.
Lessons for Corporations in Malaysia
What happened at Sime Darby is not just a corporate scandal. It is a cautionary tale—one that underscores the legal responsibilities of company directors and senior management.
Key takeaways include:
- Consent Judgments Have Consequences: Once liability is admitted, especially in a consent judgment, it becomes incredibly difficult (and often impossible) to later raise defences against quantum.
- Wrongful Payments as Breach of Fiduciary Duty: The judgment reinforces that approving or authorizing payments outside proper procedures—especially without transparency—can amount to personal liability.
- Corporate Governance Is Not Optional: The lack of internal checks and a board that failed to act swiftly deepened the company’s losses. Independent directors and audit committees must act not only as advisors but as watchdogs.
- Executives Are Not Above the Law: The long shadow of this case, spanning over a decade, shows that executives—no matter how senior—can be held to account, even years after leaving office.
A Precedent for Accountability
This case will be studied by lawyers, board members, and compliance professionals for years to come. It provides an important benchmark for how Malaysian courts are willing to enforce corporate accountability—not merely through the company, but against individual officers.
For law firms advising GLCs, listed issuers, or multinational corporations, the implications are clear: there is no more room for opacity or plausible deniability. Boards must not only set the tone at the top—they must audit the music being played throughout the organisation.
As Sime Darby moves on and rebuilds, the court’s decision stands as a reminder of the high stakes of corporate governance. And for the Malaysian legal community, it marks a significant moment in our jurisprudence: a clarion call for responsibility, vigilance, and transparency in leadership.
Disclaimer
This article was prepared for entertainment and education purposes only. Please do not treat its contents as a substitute for legal advice. This article was prepared by a human writer with the assistance of artificial intelligence based on current news reports.
Thanks for reading.