Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Section 347 and 348 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2025

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

Citation

BA-24NCC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-127-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

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.
24 Feb 2022

LAU JICK ING 1. ) LIM HENG SEAN @EDDIE LIM 2. ) CEMERLANG UTARA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC-632-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-632-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he acted in good faith and that the proposed derivative claim had a reasonable prospect of success; his conduct in persuading service stations to breach existing arrangements with Chevron and other questionable transactions caused Sutera Matra to stop commission payments and showed a collateral personal motive; consequently granting leave would not be prima facie in the best interest of the 2nd defendant, so the originating summons for leave is dismissed.