Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 351 companies act 2016

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2025

1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2. ) MOHD FAIZ BIN SAZALI

Citation

WA-24NCC-526-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-526-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The plaintiffs have locus standi under s351 CA 2016 to seek the remedies claimed, but there are substantial and material disputes of fact (eg whether the plaintiff competed with ParkSpots, whether a December 2022 meeting occurred, whether breaches of the SHA and statutory accounting obligations occurred) that cannot be resolved on affidavit evidence; accordingly the originating summons procedure was inappropriate and the OS is dismissed with liberty to commence a writ action for full trial.
11 Apr 2025

1. ) Dato' Chang Jong Yu 2. ) Iconic Bina Sdn Bhd 3. ) Laman Kejora Sdn Bhd 4. ) Permai Ikhlas Sdn Bhd 5. ) Cerah Teguh Sdn Bhd 1. ) Kuala Ibai Property Sdn Bhd 2. ) Modern Mode Sdn Bhd 3. ) Saham Terbilang Sdn Bhd 4. ) Woo Thin Choy 5. ) C

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1912-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-1912-11/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that section 351 CA 2016 provides a broad, independent statutory remedy that can operate alongside winding up proceedings; the appellants as affected creditors had sufficient interest for a s.351 injunction; the Respondents' conduct and the Liquidator's actions gave rise to prima facie contraventions of the Companies Act (including ss.472, 486(2), 527(10), 528), and therefore an injunction restraining transfers or creation of interests in the specified lands pending disposal of Suit 133 was appropriate.
21 Aug 2024

1. ) SUPERMAX CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) MAXWELL GLOVE MANUFACTURING BERHAD 3. ) SUPERMAX GLOVE MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 4. ) SUPERVISION OPTIMAX SDN BHD 5. ) MAXTER GLOVE MANUFACTURING SDN BHD TAN BEE GEOK

Citation

BA-24NCC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-34-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a contravention or imminent or serious prejudice justifying s.351 relief: there was an unexplained four-year delay after the 17.9.2020 consent order, contemporaneous evidence showed payroll transition to a third party from 2022 and control by plaintiffs' HR, plaintiffs produced no documentation proving withholding or operational disruption, and allegations of mala fide were unproven.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2. ) MOHD FAIZ BIN SAZALI

1. ) Dato' Chang Jong Yu 2. ) Iconic Bina Sdn Bhd 3. ) Laman Kejora Sdn Bhd 4. ) Permai Ikhlas Sdn Bhd 5. ) Cerah Teguh Sdn Bhd 1. ) Kuala Ibai Property Sdn Bhd 2. ) Modern Mode Sdn Bhd 3. ) Saham Terbilang Sdn Bhd 4. ) Woo Thin Choy 5. ) C

1. ) SUPERMAX CORPORATION BERHAD 2. ) MAXWELL GLOVE MANUFACTURING BERHAD 3. ) SUPERMAX GLOVE MANUFACTURING SDN BHD 4. ) SUPERVISION OPTIMAX SDN BHD 5. ) MAXTER GLOVE MANUFACTURING SDN BHD TAN BEE GEOK