Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for IRENE WONG SOOK LIN & ORS vs DATUK AU YEE BOON & ORS...
IRENE WONG SOOK LIN & ORS vs DATUK AU YEE BOON & ORS - 2024 MarsdenLR 2891
: Under the Companies Act 2016, minority shareholders seeking to commence a derivative action must obtain leave from the court pursuant to sections 347 and 348. To secure such leave, applicants must demonstrate good faith and a genuine interest in the company''''s welfare, including an honest belief in a viable cause of action and the absence of any collateral purpose. The burden of proof lies with the applicant, and the court will not grant leave lightly. In this case, the applicants failed to meet this burden due to their prior connections with the opposing party''''s legal representative and their acquisition of shares after the alleged misconduct, which undermined their claim of good faith. The court ultimately dismissed the application, emphasizing that derivative actions must be pursued in the best interest of the company, not for personal or strategic gain.Checking relevance for LUA CHONG HOCK vs LUA BROTHERS ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ORS (ENCL 1)...LUA CHONG HOCK vs LUA BROTHERS ENGINEERING SDN BHD & ORS (ENCL 1) - 2021 MarsdenLR 3154
: Under the Companies Act 2016, Sections 347 and 348, a shareholder may apply for leave to commence a derivative action. The court''''s role at the leave stage is to filter out frivolous applications and not to assess the merits of the claim. A derivative action requires the applicant to demonstrate good faith and that the action serves the company''''s best interests. Failure to conduct basic due diligence, such as verifying land ownership, and lack of evidentiary support for allegations render the application frivolous and without merit, leading to dismissal. The court emphasized that derivative actions must be grounded in substantive merit and good faith, and failure to meet these criteria results in the application being dismissed.Checking relevance for DATO SERI TIMOR SHAH RAFIQ vs NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL...DATO SERI TIMOR SHAH RAFIQ vs NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD AND ANOTHER APPEAL - 2024 MarsdenLR 375
: Under the Companies Act 2016, derivative actions are governed exclusively by statutory provisions, specifically Sections 345, 347 to 350. The common law right to bring derivative actions has been abrogated. To obtain leave to commence a derivative action, an applicant must demonstrate both good faith and that the proposed action is in the best interest of the company. The court emphasized that the applicant must have an honest belief in a good cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success. In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet these requirements, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.Checking relevance for RISING SUN MACHINERY PARTS SDN BHD vs PANG CHI CHIANG & ORS...RISING SUN MACHINERY PARTS SDN BHD vs PANG CHI CHIANG & ORS - 2022 MarsdenLR 1192
: Under Section 347 of the Companies Act 2016, a shareholder may bring a derivative action in the name and on behalf of a company to address corporate wrongs, particularly when the wrongs are committed against the company and not directly against the shareholder. The court in this case clarified that claims based on corporate mismanagement or misappropriation of company funds—such as improper transfers of funds without approval—constitute corporate wrongs that require a derivative action under s 347 CA 2016, rather than an oppression action under s 346 CA 2016. The court further confirmed that a shareholder may apply for leave to bring such a derivative action, and the court retained jurisdiction to grant such leave, as demonstrated by the order allowing the plaintiff to apply for leave to initiate a statutory derivative action under s 347 CA 2016 on behalf of the 4th defendant.Checking relevance for CHEN FU-DAUL vs CHEN PAI-JUNG & ANOR...CHEN FU-DAUL vs CHEN PAI-JUNG & ANOR - 2025 MarsdenLR 3495
: Under Sections 347 and 348 of the Companies Act 2016, a shareholder may bring a derivative action on behalf of the company against a majority shareholder for misappropriation of funds, provided the plaintiff demonstrates good faith and that the action is in the best interest of the company. The court must be satisfied that the application was made in good faith and that the action serves the company''''s interests, particularly when there is a prima facie case of misappropriation. The burden of proving good faith lies on the plaintiff on a balance of probabilities, and hostility between parties does not equate to bad faith. A one-year delay in filing was deemed not inordinate when explained in context. The court granted leave to commence the derivative action to recover misused funds.
