CHOY YUK KONG & ORS vs LANDYORK FARMING SDN BHD & ORS

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2019 MarsdenLR 647

HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
CHOY YUK KONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LANDYORK FARMING SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: JA-24NCC-12-07-2018]

Important Points

Minority oppression claims require evidence of personal wrongs affecting shareholders' rights, not distinct corporate grievances.

Subject

Company Law - Minority Oppression

Act Referred

Companies Act 2016: S.346, S.347, S.348

Headnote

This application relates to an allegation of minority oppression filed under s 346 of the Companies Act 2016. The court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the application’s intitulement and focused on the merits of the claims. Key findings indicated no evidence of oppression as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their rights as minority shareholders were adversely affected. The court emphasized the necessity of personal wrongs for a successful claim under minority oppression. The application was ultimately dismissed as it did not meet the established criteria for relief.

Petitioner Advocates:YK Tee ,Respondent Advocate: KS Ong

Table of Content
1. allegation of minority oppression is evaluated. (Para 1)
2. the court maintains that the nature of the application does not change its treatment under s 346. (Para 2 , 3)

[1] This application concerns an allegation of minority oppression as documented in the originating summons filed by the plaintiffs under s 346 of the Companies Act 2016 ("the Companies Act").

[2] Counsel for the defendants raised a preliminary objection that the filing of this application was incorrect as he claimed that the intitulement, as well as some of the reliefs, reflected a derivative action which should have been initiated under s 347 of the Companies Act.

[3] Based on the documents before me, I dismissed the preliminary objection and took the view that since the application was made under s 346 of the Companies Act, it will be treated as such; and any claim of it being a derivative action would be judged on the actual contents of this application, rather than on its intitulement and reliefs.