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

2016 MarsdenLR 1217

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
COMMERCEONE PROPERTY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
BANGSAR TRADE CENTRE SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: 24NCC-215-06/2015]



Timely conversion from originating summons to writ under O 28 r 8 ROC 2012 is critical; undue delay may preclude rights to convert.

Headnote:The Plaintiff, Commerceone Property Sdn Bhd, brought an action under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 alleging minority oppression. The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application to convert an originating summons into a writ action under O 28 r 8 ROC 2012, citing inordinate delay and lack of bona fide. The Plaintiff was allowed to withdraw their originating summons without liberty to file afresh, thereby disposing of the matter finally. The main issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow conversion. The court highlighted the importance of expedient legal process and the contextual delay by the Plaintiff in not seeking earlier conversion despite clear conflicts of evidence. Ultimately, the outcome was a refusal of the Plaintiff's request, ensuring that the interests of justice and efficiency in legal proceedings were upheld.

Table of Content
1. corporate entities involved in a development project. (Para 1 , 2 , 6)
2. allegations of minority oppression by directors. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. arguments regarding the application to convert. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
4. issues of delay affecting the conversion application. (Para 62 , 63 , 64)
5. verdict allowing withdrawal without liberty to file afresh. (Para 69 , 70 , 71)
JUDGEMENT

Khadijah Idris JC:

Background

[1] Plaintiff, Commerceone Property Sdn Bhd (Company No: 864919-H), is a private limited company incorporated in Malaysia under the Companies Act 1965 [Act 125] having its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu 55100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan. At all material time, one Ding Mei Siang ("DMS") is a shareholder and director of Plaintiff company. Plaintiff company through DMS participated in the re-development of a project namely Bangsar Trade Centre. The Plaintiff company interest in the said project as a shareholder and its shareholding is related in the succeeding paragraphs. All the affidavits filed by the Plaintiff company in this action was affirmed by DMS who was authorised to do so by the Plaintiff company. DMS is also a director of the Second Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Defendant.

[2] The 8 Defendants named in this action are as follows:

a) First Defendant, Bangsar Trade Centre Sdn Bhd (Company No:859085-P) is a private limited established on 1 June 2009 under Act 125 ("D1") having its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya, Pudu, 55100 Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan ("8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu"). D1 is the parent company of the Second Defendant. D1 represent the investment of the investors and interest of the promoters in respect of the re-development project of Bangsar Trade Centre;

b) Second Defendant, Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd (Company No:889470-W) is a private limited company incorporated under Act 125 ("D2") with its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu. All 1,250,000 shares issued by D2 are held by D1. D2 is a developer company identified specifically to undertake the re-development project of Bangsar Trade Centre;

c) Third Defendant, Lee Seng Khoon ("D3") is a trained accountant who has 10 years experience in the global corporate finance restructuring/distressed debt. His area of expertise is rehabilitation of abandoned project. D3 at all material time is a shareholder and director of D1 and also a director of Second, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Defendant.

d) Fourth Defendant, Tee Siew Kai ("D4") a qualified accountant. D4 at all material time is a shareholder and director of D1 and also a director of Second, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Defendant;

e) Fifth Defendant, Solaris Bayview SdnBhd(Company No:986858-T) is a private limited company incorporated under Act 125 ("D5") with its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu. D5 was established to hold the shareholding interest of the promoters who participated in the re-development of Bangsar Trade Centre project;

f) Sixth Defendant, Twin Pavillion Properties Management Sdn Bhd (Company No:934759-X) is a private limited company incorporated under Act 125 ("D6") with its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu. D6 holds 60% of total shares issued in D5. The 2 shares issued by D6 is held by D3 and D4;

g) Seventh Defendant, BW Bangsar Sdn Bhd (Company No:959722-P) is a private limited company incorporated under Act 125 ("D7") with its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu. D7 was intended to be the operator of Best Western Hotel which is located at blocks D and E of the Bangsar Trade Center building; and

h) Eighth Defendant, Twin Pavillion Properties Sdn Bhd (Company No:361690-U) is a private limited company incorporated under Act 125 ("D8") with its registered address at 8-B Jalan Nyonya Pudu. D8 was supposed to perform building management services and collect rental from the tenants of Bangsar Trade Centre building.

[3] On 5 June 2015 the Plaintiff took out an Originating Summons No 24NCC-215-06/2015 (Encl 1) to move the court under s 1

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top