JUDGMENT

Atan Mustaffa Yussof Ahmad J:

[1] This judgment concerns an application to appoint an independent valuer to determine the fair value of shares in a private limited company following a court order in a shareholders' dispute. The application arises from the parties' inability to agree on the selection of a valuer as mandated by the court's previous order. At the heart of this dispute are conflicting proposals for potential valuers with significant disparities in their quoted fees and proposed scopes of work. The applicant seeks the appointment of a well-established firm with international connections, citing its expertise and comprehensive approach to the valuation task. Conversely, the respondents propose alternative valuers with substantially lower fee quotes, arguing that these firms possess sufficient expertise for the task at hand. This case raises important questions about the criteria for selecting an independent valuer in complex shareholder disputes, the relevance of fee structures in such appointments, and the necessary qualifications for conducting a thorough and impartial valuation. Additionally, it highlights the challenges in balancing the need for a comprehensiv