Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
HO YAU HONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
HO YAW MING & ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court reviews claims of oppression due to statutory non-compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 14) |
| 2. the plaintiff's complicity affects the oppression claim. (Para 15 , 20 , 31 , 32) |
| 3. determination of the oppression threshold versus derivative action. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 24 , 25) |
A. Factual Background Of The Appeal
[1] There are two related appeals before us namely; (i) Rayuan Sivil No: W 02(NCC)(A)-1801-09-2021 ("Appeal 1801") and (ii) Rayuan Sivil No: W-02(IM)(NCC)-1488-08-2021 ("Appeal 1488"). Appeal 1801 is regarding the Respondent's Oppression Action against the Appellants via Originating Summons (OS Action) which was allowed by the learned Judicial Commissioner (JC) mainly on the grounds of statutory non-compliances against the Companies Act 2016 and alleged misappropriation of monies to other companies within the same family group of companies.
[2] Appeal 1488 arises out of the Appellants' application to convert the OS Action into a writ action which was dismissed by the learned JC.
[3] The Appellants (respondents in the OS Action) contested against the oppression OS Action on the basis that it was not at all based on a genuine complaint
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
