JUDGMENT

Wong Mee Ling J:

Introduction

[1] The Petitioner has filed an application for leave to cross-examine the 1st ("R1") and 2nd Respondents ("R2") in relation to the petitioner's petition to wind up the 3rd Respondent, Sri Skudai Sdn Bhd (the "company") pursuant to s 469(3) of the Companies Act 2016 [Act 777], O 38 r 2(2) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") and/or O 92 r 4 of ROC 2012.

[2] After considering all cause papers, the written submissions and oral submissions of the parties, I dismissed the petitioner's application in encl 38 and awarded RM3,000.00 costs, subject to allocator fees, to be paid by the petitioner to R1 and R2 within fourteen (14) days from this order.

[3] Below are the grounds of my decision.

Background

[4] The background facts in this application are gathered from the affidavits and submissions filed by the parties and stated in chronological order.

[5] The Petitioner is:

(i) the son of the late Ang Tiong Loi (the "deceased") and R1;

(ii) the executor of the estate of the deceased;

(iii) current shareholder of the company holding 125,000 of its shares equivalent to 25% of its total paid-up share capital; and

(iv) the brother to R2.

[6] R1 is:

(i) the mother to the petitioner and R2;

(ii) the lawful spouse of the deceased; and

(iii) current shareholder of the company holding 250,000 of its shares equivalent to 50% of its total paid-up share capital.

[7] R2 is:

(i) the daughter of the deceased and R1;

(ii) current shareholder of the company holding 125,000 of its shares equivalent to 25% of its total paid-up share capital; and

(iii) the sister to the petitioner.

[8] The 3rd Respondent (the "company") is:

(i) a company incorporated on 29 June 1977;

(ii) was founded by the deceased;

(iii) its principal business is investment holding in shares and letting of properties;

(iv) current shareholders are the petitioner, R1 and R2;

(v) current Directors are:

(a) the petitioner;

(b) Siah Chin Neo;

(c) Jeffrey Khoo Chu Kim @ Chiu Chun Chin;

(d) R1;

(e) R2; and

(f) Loong Caesar.

[9] After the demise of the deceased, the shares of the company were bequeathed to the petitioner, R1 and R2 in the manner as follows:

[10] The Petitioner alleges that there existed an understanding among the shareholders that all substantive matters of the company would be decided unanimously.

[11] The relationship between the petitioner and R1 and R2 subsequently deteriorated, leading to disputes and various legal proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.

[12] The Petitioner further alleges that resolutions were passed and appointments made, including the appointment of Directors and Company Secretary, without his consent and contrary to the alleged understanding among shareholders.

[13] Consequently, the petitioner filed a winding-up petition on 24 December 2024 against the company under ss 465(1)(f) and (h) of Act 777, alleging among others, breakdown of mutual trust and confidence, existence of a quasi-partnership, exclusion from management, and allegations of oppression amongst family shareholders.

[14] On 30 June 2025, pending the hearing of the winding-up petition (encl 1), the petitioner filed encl 38 to cross-examine R1 and R2 on issues arising from affidavit evidence (the "identified issues") as follows:

(i) the decision of the company was made by simple majority of the Board;

(ii) R1, R2 and the petitioner have never come together in association to pursue a common or mutual venture when R1, R2 and the petitioner became shareholders of the company; and

(iii) Loong Caesar was appointed as the Director of the company for the best interest of the company.

Issue to be Determined

[15] The issues to be determined are as follows:

(a) whether cross-examination of R1 and R2 advances the cause of justice; and

(b) whether cross-examination of R1 and R2 would amount to a fishing expedition.

Analysis and Court 's Findings

Whether Cross-examination of R1 and R2 Advances the Cause of Justice

[16] The Petitioner submits that there are material conflicts in affidavit evidence on the identified