SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 5378

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ONG SOO KWEE – Appellant
Versus
LOH REALTY SDN BHD – Respondent
[Companies Winding Up No: WA-28NCC-710-07/2023]



The breakdown of mutual trust and confidence among family shareholders justifies winding-up of the company under just and equitable principles.

Headnote:(A) Companies Act 2016 - Section 465(1)(h) - Petition for winding-up of family company due to breakdown in relations among shareholders - Petitioner seeking just and equitable relief after failed attempts to resolve differences - Court held that mutual trust and confidence among shareholders has irretrievably broken down, justifying winding-up of the company. (Paras 1, 24, 37)

(B) Shareholder Rights - Mutual trust and confidence essential in family-owned companies - Court found that breakdown hindered company operation and justified winding-up. (Paras 30, 35)

Facts of the case:
Petition was submitted by a shareholder with 49.5% stake in a family company due to extensive legal disputes and irreconcilable differences with the majority shareholders post the matriarch's demise. (Paras 2, 12)

Findings of Court:
Majority shareholders' refusal to purchase shares and ongoing animosity led the court to find it just and equitable to wind-up the company to preserve assets for rightful claimants. (Paras 28, 37)

Issues: The court addressed whether the current circumstances warranted a winding-up despite prior decisions in an oppression action and the current company status. (Paras 29, 32)

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for mutual trust in family businesses and that a breakdown in trust justified winding-up, as the company cannot operate under acrimony. (Paras 27, 37)

Result: Petition granted; company to be wound-up.

Table of Content
1. basis for winding-up petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. background and structure of the company. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. acrimonious family relations impact company. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. petitioner's submissions on winding-up. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
5. respondent's opposition to the petition. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
6. court's rationale against opposition. (Para 36)
7. conclusion on equitable winding-up. (Para 37)
Ahmad Murad Abdul Aziz J:

Introduction

[1] In this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to wind-up Loh Realty Sdn Bhd ("the Respondent"‌) which is a family company. This Petition is filed pursuant to s 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 (" CA 2016").

[2] The basis to wind-up the Respondent is the alleged breakdown in relations between the Petitioner and the other shareholders of the Respondent.

[3] The Petitioner is a registered shareholder of 1,983,333 (49.5%) shares in the Respondent.

[4] As at the date of this Petition, the authorized share capital of the Respondent is RM5,000,000.00 divided into 5,000,000 shares of 1.00 each. The amount of capital paid-up or credited as paid-up is RM4,000,000.00

[5] As at the date of this Petition, the registered shareholders of the Respondent are as set out below:

[6] The shareholders of the Respondent are presently divided into two factions. The factions consist of:

6.1 Khong Kok Yau, Khong Kok Yun, Ong Cheng Lian, Ong Ghee Sai, Ong Giok Pin, Ong Giok Yan and Ong Soo Keok (deceased) holding 50.5% of shares in Log Realty ('the majority shareholders') and

6.2 The Petitioner, holding 49.5% of shares in the Respondent.

Background Of The Respondent

[7] The Respondent was founded in 1983 by the late Loh Ah Moy ("LAM"‌). LAM is the matriarch of the family and the Respondent was founded to carry on the business of a property investment company for the benefit of the children and descendants of LAM ("LAM Family"‌).

[8] The Petitioner and LAM were the first subscribers and original shareholders of the Respondent. The Petitioner and LAM were also the First Directors of the Respondent. LAM was also appointed as the Permanent Director of the Respondent and thus cannot be removed as a Director of the Respondent.

[9] Subsequent to the First Directors, on various dates, 3 others (son and grandchildren of LAM) were appointed as Directors of the Respondent, namely:

[10] The above 3 persons together with LAM and the Petitioner were Directors of the Respondent until the demise of LAM. After the demise of LAM, the persons set out in the table below were appointed as Directors at various dates.

[11] Following LAM's demise in 2001, the Petitioner took over the management of the Respondent. However, the Petitioner was not reآ¬elected as a Director at the Annual General Meeting of the Respondent in 2015 due to the acrimonious relationship between the majority shareholders and the Petitioner.

The Beginning Of The Acrimonious Relationship Between The Factions

[12] Following the passing of LAM on 25 March 2001, the Petitioner avers that there has been an irreconcilable breakdown in relations between the Petitioner and members of the LAM Family, including the majority shareholders. This breakdown of mutual trust and confidence is evidenced by the numerous cases filed by both factions against the other.

[13] In 2006, the grandchildren of LAM together with Ong Soo Keok, filed an oppression suit under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 vide Petition No D8-26-35-2006 (Oppression Petition) against the Petitioner, one Khong Kok Yew, and the Respondent company.

[14] The primary remedy sought for in the Oppression Petition was that the Petitioners' (the then minority shareholders) shares in the Respondent be purchased by such other persons or members of the Respondent with an alternative remedy that the Respondent be wound up under s 218(1)(i) of the Companies Act 1965 .

[15] In the Oppression Petition, the current majority shareholders were then m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top