YAK THYE PENG 1. ) YAK TIONG LIEW 2. ) CHEW KEW HONG 3. ) SWEE WAN SDN BHD

YAK THYE PENG 1. ) YAK TIONG LIEW 2. ) CHEW KEW HONG 3. ) SWEE WAN SDN BHD

Amendment refused because defendants failed to provide cogent, timely explanation or new evidence, the proposed amendment materially changed the character of defence and appeared an afterthought causing prejudice; O.14A application dismissed because there are substantial disputed material facts requiring full trial, evidenced by pleadings and conversion to writ, making summary determination inappropriate.

Citation
JA-22NCC-53-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: YAK THYE PENG; 1st Defendant: YAK TIONG LIEW; 2nd Defendant: CHEW KEW HONG; 3rd Defendant: SWEE WAN SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 March 2022
Case Number
JA-22NCC-53-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under S.346 Companies Act 2016 Converted to Writ; Interlocutory Applications Under O.20 R.5(1) and O.14 a Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory — Applications to Amend Pleadings and for Determination of Question(s) of Law Under O.14 a
Outcome
Both applications by 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed; amendment application dismissed with costs; O.14A application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Derivative Action, Oppression of Minority, Locus Standi, Amendment of Pleadings, Order 14 a Determination
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Derivative Action Oppression of Minority Locus Standi Amendment of Pleadings Order 14 a Determination

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YAK THYE PENG

Plaintiff

YAK TIONG LIEW

1st Defendant

CHEW KEW HONG

2nd Defendant

SWEE WAN SDN BHD

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under S.346 Companies Act 2016 Converted to Writ; Interlocutory Applications Under O.20 R.5(1) and O.14 a Rules of Court 2012 / Interlocutory — Applications to Amend Pleadings and for Determination of Question(s) of Law Under O.14 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff has locus standi to commence action (personal v derivative)
  2. 2 Whether the action is oppressive or a derivative action
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff failed to comply with Companies Act 2016 s.347 procedure for derivative actions

Ratio Decidendi

Amendment refused because defendants failed to provide cogent, timely explanation or new evidence, the proposed amendment materially changed the character of defence and appeared an afterthought causing prejudice; O.14A application dismissed because there are substantial disputed material facts requiring full trial, evidenced by pleadings and conversion to writ, making summary determination inappropriate.

Court Disposition

Both applications by 1st and 2nd Defendants dismissed; amendment application dismissed with costs; O.14A application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Dismissed the 1st and 2nd Defendants' application in Enclosure 29 to amend pleadings; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
  • Dismissed the 1st and 2nd Defendants' application in Enclosure 31 under O.14A; no order as to costs.