Key Points: - Court dismissed application by Su Ming Jiun (shareholder of Petitioner) to intervene in winding-up of Respondent, finding no locus standi as he lacked legal interest in the subject matter (!) (!) (!) - Court applied test from Pegang Mining Company Ltd v. Choong Sam & Ors, requiring legal interest directly affected by orders, not mere financial interest (!) (!) (!) - Proposed intervener entitled to appear and oppose petition per Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 (rr 28-30) but not to intervene or seek stay (!) (!) (!) (!) - Court refused stay of proceedings pending Shah Alam suit, finding no special circumstances or prejudice, as issues unrelated to debt owed by Respondent (!) (!) (!) - Winding-up petition granted as Respondent insolvent: failed to comply with statutory demand under Companies Act 2016 ss 465(1)(e), 466(1)(a) and pay summary judgment debt (!) (!) (!) (!) - Summary judgment against Respondent (RM3,000,000) not stayed, merits considered, no affidavit in opposition showing solvency (!) (!) - Injunctions against Petitioner's director Lim Aik Gee did not prevent winding-up petition or affidavit affirmation (!) (!) - Su Ming Jiun not a contributory of Respondent, so no standing under s 470 Companies Act 2016 to seek stay (!) - Court appointed Mr Onn Kien Hoe as liquidator and awarded costs of RM10,000 to Petitioner from Respondent's assets (!) (!)

What is required for a party to intervene in winding-up proceedings?

What constitutes special circumstances for staying winding-up proceedings?