SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 6133

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KOAY PENG SOON – Appellant
Versus
LEE SEIK FUN & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC-329-07/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:Ryan Chu,O Ying Xin ,Respondent Advocate: Baskaran Aruchunan,Neoh Pei Yan

Oppressive conduct under Section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 includes denying minority shareholders access to financial records and unauthorized fund diversions, justifying a buy-out at fair value.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act 2016 - Section 346 - Minority shareholder oppression - Plaintiff seeks declaration of oppressive conduct by majority shareholders and a buy-out order for his 30% shareholding at fair value - Court finds systematic denial of access to financial records and diversion of funds as oppressive conduct - Court orders buy-out at fair value determined by independent valuer. (Paras 1, 9, 106, 109)

(B) Oppression - Definition and scope under s 346 - Conduct that is unfairly prejudicial or discriminatory against minority shareholders constitutes oppression - Court emphasizes that majority rule does not permit oppressive conduct. (Paras 26, 34)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a minority shareholder in ESSB, alleges oppressive conduct by majority shareholders, including denial of access to financial records and unauthorized fund transfers to related companies. (Paras 1, 11, 60)

Findings of Court:
Court finds that the Plaintiff was denied access to financial records and substantial funds were diverted to companies owned by majority shareholders, constituting oppression. (Paras 106, 109)

Issues: Whether the Plaintiff was denied access to accounts and whether the fund transfers constituted oppressive conduct under s 346. (Paras 36, 60)

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of access to financial records and unauthorized fund transfers are deemed oppressive conduct that violates the fair dealing standards expected by minority shareholders. (Paras 106, 109)

Result: Defendants ordered to buy out Plaintiff's shares at fair value and counterclaim dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. plaintiff's claims of oppression. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15)
3. defendants' response to the claims. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
4. defendants' submissions against oppression. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. legal framework on oppression under companies act. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. court's analysis on access to accounts. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
7. court's findings on denial of access. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
8. court's analysis on funds diversion. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
9. judicial principles on oppression. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)
10. court's decision on remedy for oppression. (Para 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89)
11. defendants' counterclaim and its dismissal. (Para 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104)
12. final orders and conclusions. (Para 106 , 107 , 108 , 109)
JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

Introduction

[1] Before the court is an originating summons filed by the Plaintiff under s 346 of the Companies Act 2016 seeking a declaration that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have conducted the affairs of the 3rd Defendant in an oppressive manner and in disregard of the Plaintiff's interests as a minority shareholder of the 3rd Defendant. The Plaintiff also seeks a buy-out order directing the 1st and 2nd Defendants to purchase his 30% shareholding in the 3rd Defendant company at a fair value to be determined by an independent valuer.

Background Facts

[2] The 3rd Defendant, Enpro Solutions Sdn Bhd ("ESSB"), is a company that provides lightning protection systems to ensure safety of structures against lightning strikes. The 1st Defendant, Lee Seik Fun ("D1"), and the 2nd Defendant, Lim Leong Chuan ("D2"), are directors and majority shareholders of ESSB, holding 40% and 30% of shares respectively. The Plaintiff, Koay Peng Soon, is also a director and holds the remaining 30% of shares in ESSB.

[3] The shareholding structure of ESSB is as follows:

a) D1: 40%

b) D2: 30%

c) Plaintiff: 30%

[4] The Plaintiff joined ESSB as a director and shareholder on 5 May 2022. Prior to joining, the Plaintiff, D1, and D2 were business associates within the lightning protection services industry. The Plaintiff's expertise was primarily in the northern region of Malaysia (Penang, Kedah, and Perlis).

[5] According to the Plaintiff, it was the common understanding between all three shareholders that:

a) While D1 and D2 would be the "maker" and "approval" for financial transactions of ESSB, the Plaintiff would be allowed to examine financial transactions and have access to ESSB's financial accounts;

b) The business and affairs of ESSB would be managed based on mutual trust, confidence, and good faith among the shareholders; and

c) Profits of ESSB would be enjoyed and distributed equally through dividends without any prejudice or discrimination between the three shareholders.

[6] D1 and D2 contend that there was a business arrangement where ESSB would collaborate with the 5th Defendant, Enpro Teknologi Sdn Bhd ("ETSB"), and the 6th Defendant, Enpro Engineering Sdn Bhd ("EESB"). Under this arrangement, the Plaintiff would source customers for ESSB, EESB would handle engineering aspects, and ETSB would supply and deliver lightning protection system materials. Payments received by ESSB from customers would be distributed to ETSB and EESB according to agreed distribution rates for each project.

[7] The 4th Defendant, Abre Engineering Sdn Bhd ("AESB"), is also involved in this matter concerning a specific transaction of RM250,000.00 transferred from ESSB's accounts to AESB on 9 February 2024.

[8] It is undisputed that D1 and D2 are the sole shareholders and directors of ETSB, EESB, and AESB.

The Originating Summons

[9] This Originating Summons is filed by the Plaintiff as a minority shareholder oppress

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top