Back
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
VS INDUSTRY BERHAD – Appellant
Versus
LIM CHANG HUAT & ORS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. minority shareholders protection (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. plaintiff's minority shareholder status (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. claims of oppressive conduct (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. defendants' rebuttal strategies (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's decision process and order (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. legal framework of oppression claim (Para 39 , 42 , 55 , 70) |
| 7. relief against oppressive conduct (Para 88 , 90 , 92) |
| 8. conclusion and final orders (Para 93 , 94) |
The Legislative History On Relief Against Oppression Of Minority Shareholder
[1] The law recognises that although the will of the majority binds shareholders in a company, it will intervene if the act of the majority leads to tyranny.
[2] In Malaysia, the legal intervention against the tyranny of the majority comes in the form of s 181 of our Companies Act, 1965 which is the predecessor of our current s 346 Companies Act, 2016 Act 777 (" CA 2016").
[3] According to Lord Wilberforce in Re Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd; Kong Thai Sawmill (Miri) Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Ling Beng Sung 1978 MarsdenLR 149 ; [1978] 2 MLJ 227, s 181 of our Companies Act, 1965 "trace its descent from s 210 of the United Kingdom Compani
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
