Dato' Dr Lim Boon Ping Sun Pharmaceutical Sdn Bhd

Dato' Dr Lim Boon Ping Sun Pharmaceutical Sdn Bhd

The stay was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances. The corporate claims in the OS are legally and factually distinct from the matrimonial proceedings; the company is a separate legal person and not itself a matrimonial asset for purposes of s76 LRA; the plaintiff met statutory prerequisites for locus standi under the Companies Act and gave requisite notice; an indeterminate stay would prejudice the company and shareholders and impede the court's duty under Order 34 to dispose of matters expeditiously.

Citation
WA-24NCC-337-08/2020 (Encl. 16) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PLAINTIFF: DATO' DR LIM BOON PING; DEFENDANT: SUN PHARMACEUTICAL SDN BHD
Court
Encl. 16
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 October 2020
Case Number
WA-24NCC-337-08/2020 (Encl. 16) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under Companies Act 2016 for Leave to Commence Derivative Action / Interlocutory Application to Stay (enc.16) Decided; OS to Proceed to Hearing
Outcome
Defendant's application to stay (Enc.16) dismissed
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Stay of Proceedings, Matrimonial Assets, Locus Standi, Abuse of Process, Order 34 Case Management
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Family Law Derivative Action Stay of Proceedings Matrimonial Assets Locus Standi Abuse of Process +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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DATO' DR LIM BOON PING

PLAINTIFF

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL SDN BHD

DEFENDANT

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under Companies Act 2016 for Leave to Commence Derivative Action / Interlocutory Application to Stay (enc.16) Decided; OS to Proceed to Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special circumstances exist to justify a stay pending divorce proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the company is a matrimonial asset subject to division in divorce proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to seek leave for a derivative action under s347 CA2016

Ratio Decidendi

The stay was refused because the defendant failed to demonstrate special circumstances. The corporate claims in the OS are legally and factually distinct from the matrimonial proceedings; the company is a separate legal person and not itself a matrimonial asset for purposes of s76 LRA; the plaintiff met statutory prerequisites for locus standi under the Companies Act and gave requisite notice; an indeterminate stay would prejudice the company and shareholders and impede the court's duty under Order 34 to dispose of matters expeditiously.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application to stay (Enc.16) dismissed

Orders

  • Enc.16 dismissed with costs of RM10,000 subject to allocator
  • Originating Summons to proceed to hearing