HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
HO YEE CHIN – Appellant
Versus
HO MIN HAO & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's status and company formation. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. right to inspect accounting records. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. legal framework for inspection rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. assumption of benefit; duty of care. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
[1] The plaintiff is a Director of the 3rd defendant company, Sri Magjuta Sdn Bhd ("Sri Magjuta" or "the company"). She seeks an order under s 167(6) of the Companies Act 1965 for an auditor to inspect the companys accounting and financial records on her behalf. Her co-directors, the 1st and 2nd defendants resist the application.
[2] The scope of the exceptions and limitations of a Directors right to inspect company accounts under s 167(6) is a crucial point that arises for consideration in this application.
The Facts In Brief
[3] The plaintiff is the aunt of the 1st and 2nd defendants. The three of them are the Directors of Sri Magjuta.
[4] Sri Magjuta was incorporated on 7 September 1996, by the plaintiffs father, the late Hoo An Kee @ Ho Fong Shun ("HAK"). The first shareholders and Directors of Sri Magjuta were the plaintiff, her two sisters and her sister- in-law, the mother of the 1st and 2nd defendants. It
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.