LIEW MOONG JU v 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @ NG TING MIEW 3. ) Ng Jin Yeong

wa-24ncc-194-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 8 January 2025 • WA-24NCC-194-04/2024

Catchwords

Application to proceed with oppression Originating Summons as if begun by way of a Writ-section 346 of the Companies Act 2016-that the affairs of PSG are being conducted or the powers of the directors are being exercised in a manner oppressive to him as a member-the plaintiff filed an application-under Order 28 rule 8 [1] Rules of Court 2012-to proceed with the OS as if it was begun by way of a Writ-Order 28 rule 4 ROC 2012 to cross-examine-mandatory under Order 88 Rules of Court 2012 for an action under section 346 CA 2016 to be commenced by way of an OS-fishing expedition-Where the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds, the court has the discretion under Order 28 rule 8(1) ROC 2012 to order that the proceedings be continued as if the cause or matter had been begun by writ-The plaintiff may by his own accord make such an application for conversion. However, the court may dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-The test on conversion of OS to writ is whether the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds and whether there is a plea of fraud. It is not whether the plaintiff is embarking on a fishing expedition-the court will dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-At this stage of whether the court should convert the OS to a writ all that the plaintiff needs to show is that prima facie he has set out facts, which if proven, will support a finding of oppression.-These allegations are in fact pleas of fraud which mean the plaintiff cannot litigate by way of an OS-Historical origins and scope of the term “fishing expedition”-in a conversion application-that the only relevant considerations are whether the plaintiff is making ‘a plea of fraud’ and whether there is ‘conflicting affidavit evidence’ between the parties that require a trial in order for the judge to decide whether to prefer the testimony of the plaintiff or the defendant-if the hearing is by way of an OS and there are disputed facts as the court must then decide based solely on a consideration of the undisputed facts-the need to subpoena witnesses

Practice Areas

Application to proceed with oppression Originating Summons as if begun by way of a Writ-section 346 of the Companies Act 2016-that the affairs of PSG are being conducted or the powers of the directors are being exercised in a manner oppressive to him as a member-the plaintiff filed an application-under Order 28 rule 8 1 Rules of Court 2012-to proceed with the OS as if it was begun by way of a Writ-Order 28 rule 4 ROC 2012 to cross-examine-mandatory under Order 88 Rules of Court 2012 for an action under section 346 CA 2016 to be commenced by way of an OS-fishing expedition-Where the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds, the court has the discretion under Order 28 rule 8(1) ROC 2012 to order that the proceedings be continued as if the cause or matter had been begun by writ-The plaintiff may by his own accord make such an application for conversion. However, the court may dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-The test on conversion of OS to writ is whether the facts are contradicted on substantial grounds and whether there is a plea of fraud. It is not whether the plaintiff is embarking on a fishing expedition-the court will dismiss the conversion application where documentary evidence is sufficient to address the issues arising-At this stage of whether the court should convert the OS to a writ all that the plaintiff needs to show is that prima facie he has set out facts, which if proven, will support a finding of oppression.-These allegations are in fact pleas of fraud which mean the plaintiff cannot litigate by way of an OS-Historical origins and scope of the term “fishing expedition”-in a conversion application-that the only relevant considerations are whether the plaintiff is making ‘a plea of fraud’ and whether there is ‘conflicting affidavit evidence’ between the parties that require a trial in order for the judge to decide whether to prefer the testimony of the plaintiff or the defendant-if the hearing is by way of an OS and there are disputed facts as the court must then decide based solely on a consideration of the undisputed facts-the need to subpoena witnesses

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Parties (4)

PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING Sdn Bhd Respondent Liew Moong Ju Applicant Ng Jin Yeong Respondent Ng Kong Chen @ Ng Ting Miew Respondent

Case Significance

LIEW MOONG JU v 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 8, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncc-194-04-2024). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of LIEW MOONG JU v 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @...?

LIEW MOONG JU v 1. ) PENINSULAR STEEL GALVANISING SDN BHD 2. ) NG KONG CHEN @... is a High Court decision dated January 8, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.