1. ) Dato’ Ganesan for the 1st Respondent [Messrs Ganesan & Irmohizam] 2. ) Nagarajah and Michael Anthony for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents [Messrs Nagarajah] LAIN-LAIN Dato’ Seri Rajan Navaratnam, Roshan Selvaratnam and R. Aravind for the Peti

1. ) Dato’ Ganesan for the 1st Respondent [Messrs Ganesan & Irmohizam] 2. ) Nagarajah and Michael Anthony for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents [Messrs Nagarajah] LAIN-LAIN Dato’ Seri Rajan Navaratnam, Roshan Selvaratnam and R. Aravind for the Peti

Court allowed the interlocutory application to admit fresh evidence because the three Ladd v Marshall conditions were satisfied: the evidence (formation of Bobar and diversion of Company resources) did not exist at the time of filing, it was likely to have an important influence on the winding up petition grounded on directors acting in their own interests and just and equitable grounds, and it was prima facie credible; respondents would not be prejudiced because they had not yet closed their case; leave to file further affidavit and related procedural steps was granted.

Citation
COMPANIES WINDING UP PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1359-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Poh Bee Bee; 1st Respondent: Brand Speaks Sdn Bhd; 2nd Respondent: Tan Ying Ping; 3rd Respondent: Low Yee Wei
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
16 February 2021
Case Number
COMPANIES WINDING UP PETITION NO. WA-28NCC-1359-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Petition / Interlocutory Application to Admit Fresh Evidence Under Rule 193 (companies (winding Up) Rules 1972)
Outcome
Application allowed in part; leave granted to admit fresh evidence and to file further affidavit
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Directors' Duties and Conflicts, Oppression/unfairly Prejudicial Conduct
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Winding Up Just and Equitable Winding Up Admission of Fresh Evidence Directors' Duties and Conflicts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Poh Bee Bee

Petitioner

Brand Speaks Sdn Bhd

1st Respondent

Tan Ying Ping

2nd Respondent

Low Yee Wei

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Petition / Interlocutory Application to Admit Fresh Evidence Under Rule 193 (companies (winding Up) Rules 1972)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence discovered after filing a winding up petition should be admitted
  2. 2 Whether the Ladd v Marshall criteria for fresh evidence are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether petition must be judged by facts existing at filing or can include subsequent conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Court allowed the interlocutory application to admit fresh evidence because the three Ladd v Marshall conditions were satisfied: the evidence (formation of Bobar and diversion of Company resources) did not exist at the time of filing, it was likely to have an important influence on the winding up petition grounded on directors acting in their own interests and just and equitable grounds, and it was prima facie credible; respondents would not be prejudiced because they had not yet closed their case; leave to file further affidavit and related procedural steps was granted.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; leave granted to admit fresh evidence and to file further affidavit

Orders

  • Grant prayers 1, 2, 4 and 5 of enclosure 57 (leave to file and serve further affidavit and to use affidavit in support as further affidavit)
  • Respondents granted leave to file affidavit in reply within 14 days from judgment