Registered members can seek equitable relief even when defects in standing are alleged; courts exercise discretion to allow claims ensuring justice prevails.

A. Introduction

[1] In this originating summons (OS), the plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) have, among others:-

(a) alleged "oppression" by the first defendant (1st Defendant) under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 () in respect of the sixth defendant company (6th Defendant); and

(b) applied to rectify the 6th Defendant's register of members (6th Defendant's Register) under s 162 CA .

[2] The 3 novel questions that arise in this case are as follows:

(a) is the OS defective under the Rules of 2012 () by claiming for both oppression and rectification of the 6th Defendant's Register?;

(b) the 4th Plaintiff company (4th Plaintiff) is the executor and trustee of the estate of the late Mr Koo Ling Ching (KLC). The 4th Plaintiff is a registered shareholder of 265,000 shares in the 6th Defendant for the benefit of KLC's estate. The 1st plaintiff (1st Plaintiff), second plaintiff (2nd Plaintiff) and third plaintiff (3rd Plaintiff) are the beneficiaries of KLC's estate but the 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs are not the registered shareholders in the 6th Defendant. Although the 4th Plaintiff is a registered shareholder in the 6th Defendant, can the 4th Plaintiff file an oppression suit under s 181 CA ?; and

(c) on 19 December 2014 the Plaintiffs have applied in Court enclosure no 29 (Court Encl No 29) to cross-examine the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant has affirmed 6 affidavits (Court enclosure nos 7, 16, 17, 22, 23 and 57), including one affidavit (Court enclosure no 7) containing 166 paragraphs running to 55 pages (affidavit in Malay) and 49 pages (affidavit in English). Can the 1st Defendant's learned counsel now resist Court Encl No 29 by relying on, among others, a psychiatrist report dated 5 May 2015 which states that the 1st Defendant is "not likely to have the mental ability to understand the role and nature of Court proceedings"?

B. Parties

[3] KLC and the 1st Defendant are brothers.

[4] The 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs are KLC's children who are the beneficiaries of KLC's estate.

[5] Besides the 1st and 6th Defendants, the other defendants in this case are as follows:

(a) the 2nd defendant (2nd Defendant) is the 1st Defendant's son and is a shareholder of 6th Defendant;

(b) the 3rd defendant (3rd Defendant) is the 1st Defendant's son. The 3rd Defendant has been a director of the 6th Defendant from 11 July 2011 until 15 October 2012;

(c) the 4th defendant (4th Defendant) is the 1st Defendant's daughter and is a director of 6th Defendant since 11 July 2011; and

(d) the 5th defendant (5th Defendant) has been a director of the 6th Defendant from 1 June 2011 until 16 November 2012. The Plaintiffs aver that the 5th Defendant is an employee of the 6th Defendant at the material time.

This judgment will refer to the 1st to 6th Defendants as the "Defendants".

C. 2 Applications

[6] After Court Encl No 29 has been filed by the Plaintiffs, Court enclosure no 32 (Court Encl No 32) is filed on 13 January 2015 by the 1st to 4th and 6th Defendants to strike out the OS.

[7] Despite the earlier filing of Court Encl No 29, I directed Court Encl No 32 to be heard before Court Encl No 29 This is because if Court Encl No 32 is allowed, the OS will be struck out and consequently, Court Encl No 29 will also be struck out. If Court Encl No 32 is dismissed, only then will Court Encl No 29 be heard.

D. Averments In OS And Affidavit In Support

[8] To decide Court Encl No 32, I need to set out the contents of the OS and its supporting affidavit in Court enclosure no 2 (Plaintiffs' 1st Affidavit). Needless to say, at this juncture, I express no view in respect of the truth or otherwise of the averments in the OS and the P