Wong Kian Kheong JC:

JUDGMENT

A. Introduction

[1]This is a petition under s181 of the Companies Act 1965 (CA) based on, among others, 2 trust deeds. I have refrained from using the term “oppression” for a suit under s181 CA (Section 181 Action) as the scope of s181 CA is wider than “oppression” (which will be elaborated later in this judgment). The distinctive feature of this case is that the factual position averred by the petitioner (Petitioner) is diametrically opposed to that taken by the respondents (Respondents).

[2]The issues that arise for determination in this case are —

(a)whether findings of fact made by another High Court in an earlier suit (Conspiracy Suit) (the parties in the Conspiracy Suit include the parties in the Petition) after trial of the Conspiracy Suit, binds this court by reason of the second limb of res judicata doctrine (issue estoppel principle);

(b)whether the Petitioner has the locus standi to file a Section 181 Action;

(c)whether the 2 trust deeds in this case are invalid for being contrary to public policy on the ground of the Petitioner’s circumvention of an alleged condition of a license issued by Petronas to the licensee company requiring minimum Bumiput