In the case of Veheng Global Traders Sdn Bhd v. Amgeneral Insurance Bhd & Anor And Another Appeal [2019] 7 CLJ 715 Ramly Ali FCJ said:

We can do no better than what has been aptly described by Idrus Harun JCA, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal on this issue, when His Lordship said (at para. [25] of the judgment):

[25] Sinnaiyah therefore is now the state of the law, even prior to the decision of the learned judge on 29.01.2016, and as such, His Lordship as with this Court, would be bound by the said decision. In Dalip Bhagwan Singh v. Public Prosecutor [1997] 4 CLJ 645; [1998] 1 MLJ 1, the Federal Court at p. 14 authoritatively held that:

if the House of Lords, and by analogy, the Federal Court, departs from its previous decision when it is right to do so in the circumstances set out above, then also by necessary implication, its decision represents the present state of the law. When two decisions of the Federal Court conflict on a point of law, the later decision therefore, for the same reasons, prevail over the earlier decisions.

Based on the above reasoning, we will answer question (i) in the affirmative ie, that the standard of proof on a balance of probabilities for fraud cases in civil proceedings where fraud is alleged as laid down in Sinnaiyah (supra) is applicable to trials concluded pre-Sinnaiyah but judgment thereof was