TEE KENG EING 1. ) FAMILY OPTOMETRY SDN BHD 2. ) YONG YIT TUNG

TEE KENG EING 1. ) FAMILY OPTOMETRY SDN BHD 2. ) YONG YIT TUNG

Application for leave dismissed because the purported notice was ambiguous and did not satisfy s348(2) requirements, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good faith with sufficient particulars or corroborating evidence and the proposed derivative action was not prima facie in the best interest of the company given tenuous merits and likely costs; accordingly leave denied and costs awarded.

Citation
BA-24NCC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: TEE KENG EING; 1st Defendant: FAMILY OPTOMETRY SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: YONG YIT TUNG
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
28 April 2025
Case Number
BA-24NCC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Derivative Action Under the Companies Act 2016 / Leave Application (originating Summons)
Outcome
Enclosure 1 dismissed
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Section 347 and 348 Companies Act 2016, Leave to Commence Proceedings in Name of Company, Fiduciary Duties of Directors, Good Faith, Notice Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Equity and Fiduciary Law Derivative Action Section 347 and 348 Companies Act 2016 Leave to Commence Proceedings in Name of Company Fiduciary Duties of Directors Good Faith +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TEE KENG EING

Plaintiff

FAMILY OPTOMETRY SDN BHD

1st Defendant

YONG YIT TUNG

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Derivative Action Under the Companies Act 2016 / Leave Application (originating Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notice under s348(2) Companies Act 2016 was valid and complied with the 30‑day requirement
  2. 2 Whether the applicant acted in good faith under s348(4)
  3. 3 Whether the proposed derivative action is prima facie in the best interest of the company

Ratio Decidendi

Application for leave dismissed because the purported notice was ambiguous and did not satisfy s348(2) requirements, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate good faith with sufficient particulars or corroborating evidence and the proposed derivative action was not prima facie in the best interest of the company given tenuous merits and likely costs; accordingly leave denied and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 1 dismissed

Orders

  • Enclosure 1 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to defendant RM7,500.00