SATHIYAN A/L GOPAL 1. ) KAVILASHINI A/P SELVARAJAH 2. ) GEMILANG OCCUHEALTH SERVICES SDN BHD 3. ) WAWASAN KVL OCCUHEALTH SDN. BHD.

SATHIYAN A/L GOPAL 1. ) KAVILASHINI A/P SELVARAJAH 2. ) GEMILANG OCCUHEALTH SERVICES SDN BHD 3. ) WAWASAN KVL OCCUHEALTH SDN. BHD.

On the evidence and applying s.346 and authorities, the court found Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that D1's acts amounted to oppression; the contested acts were consequences of a domestic marital dispute, amounted to disagreements or alleged mismanagement rather than a visible departure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-24NCC-145-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sathiyan a/l Gopal; 1st Defendant: Kavilashini a/p Selvarajah; 2nd Defendant: Gemilang Occuhealth Services Sdn Bhd; 3rd Defendant: Wawasan KVL Occuhealth Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 July 2024
Case Number
BA-24NCC-145-11/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Oppression Remedy Under S.346 Companies Act 2016 / High Court Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's S.346 Application; Costs Awarded; Plaintiff Has Appealed to the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Enclosure 1 (Plaintiff's s.346 application) dismissed
Legal Topics
Oppression Remedy, Shareholder Dispute, Mismanagement Vs Oppression, Relief Under S.346, Costs
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Oppression Remedy Shareholder Dispute Mismanagement Vs Oppression Relief Under S.346 Costs

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sathiyan a/l Gopal

Plaintiff

Kavilashini a/p Selvarajah

1st Defendant

Gemilang Occuhealth Services Sdn Bhd

2nd Defendant

Wawasan KVL Occuhealth Sdn Bhd

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Oppression Remedy Under S.346 Companies Act 2016 / High Court Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff's S.346 Application; Costs Awarded; Plaintiff Has Appealed to the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the 1st Defendant amounted to oppression under s.346 Companies Act 2016
  2. 2 Whether acts complained amount to unfair discrimination or disregard of Plaintiff's interests as shareholder
  3. 3 Whether mismanagement or matrimonial dispute falls within s.346

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and applying s.346 and authorities, the court found Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that D1's acts amounted to oppression; the contested acts were consequences of a domestic marital dispute, amounted to disagreements or alleged mismanagement rather than a visible departure from standards of fair dealing or disregard of Plaintiff's interests as a member, and Plaintiff as an equal 50% shareholder who controlled company finances failed to show the requisite unfairness; application dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 1 (Plaintiff's s.346 application) dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay costs of RM15000.00 to the Defendants subject to the allocator