Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Doctrine of necessity

Legal area

Court

5 Jan 2022

1. KUAT KA PENG @ KER KA PENG 2. LIM CHING YONG 3. TAN SOON HEO 4. KER @ KUAT SOON HUAT ZULKARNAIN BIN ABD LATIF

Citation

JB-24NCVC-54-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-24NCVC-54-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Defendant established sufficient basis for a caveatable interest under the special‑circumstances exception (beneficiaries/administrator acting to protect estate after alleged fraudulent transfer); therefore the Plaintiffs' application to remove the caveat was dismissed and the caveat remains, with the Defendant required to prove his substantive claim on the balance of probabilities at trial.
20 Sept 2020

GUAN LI SENG (MUAR) TILING SDN BHD (Company Registration No. : 710210-P) TEO SHEN YING (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) (trading under the name and style of Guan Li Seng Tiling & Trading) Business Registration No. : JR0033759-K And MM Tiling Ente

Citation

JB-22NCVC-62-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-62-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The writ action was not a valid derivative action because it failed to comply with Companies Act 2016 requirements (notably s348 notice and leave); no board or shareholder resolution existed and the facts did not justify invocation of the doctrine of necessity; consequently the parties who commenced and instructed solicitors lacked locus standi and the Deputy Registrar’s striking out of the writ was proper. The interlocutory application to remove solicitors was allowed and costs awarded.
25 Aug 2020

FARIDAH BINTI MOHAMED TAN HUAN HING

Citation

JA-24NCVC-307-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCVC-307-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Applicant lacked locus standi to pursue a derivative action because she did not obtain leave under s.347/348 Companies Act 2016 nor any board or shareholder resolution and failed to discharge the burden to justify reliance on the Doctrine of Necessity; consequently the originating summons was dismissed, but the Respondent—whose uncontested affidavit shows he paid company liabilities—was entitled to certified company documents for the period he served as director and to repayment by the company of monies he paid, to be assessed by the Registrar.

Malaysia Case Law

1. KUAT KA PENG @ KER KA PENG 2. LIM CHING YONG 3. TAN SOON HEO 4. KER @ KUAT SOON HUAT ZULKARNAIN BIN ABD LATIF

GUAN LI SENG (MUAR) TILING SDN BHD (Company Registration No. : 710210-P) TEO SHEN YING (NO. K/P : XXXXXX-XX-XXXX) (trading under the name and style of Guan Li Seng Tiling & Trading) Business Registration No. : JR0033759-K And MM Tiling Ente

FARIDAH BINTI MOHAMED TAN HUAN HING