DRAWBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES (M) SDN BHD v 1. ) AD&M GLOBAL SDN BHD 2. ) JRSYS SDN BHD (IN LIQUIDATION 3. ) MAN SKETCH TECHNOLOGIES SDN BHD 4. ) WONG WING SOON

Case Significance

Illustrates the just and equitable winding-up jurisdiction under section 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016 where a company has lost its substratum and shareholder trust in a quasi-partnership has irretrievably broken down, leaving continuation of the company without legitimate purpose.

This High Court decision in the Commercial Division at Kuala Lumpur concerns a shareholder's petition to wind up a company on the just and equitable ground under section 465(1)(h) of the Companies Act 2016. The petitioner, a shareholder of the company, sought a winding-up order on two related footings: that the company had lost its substratum — the underlying purpose for which it was formed — and that the relationship between the shareholders had broken down irretrievably. The company had been incorporated in early 2018, and the petition described a collapse of trust and confidence in the directorship, the removal of a director, and legal action taken against a shareholder, against a background in which the company was said to have had no active trade and to have ceased pursuing its main objective. The respondents contested the petition, disputing the amounts claimed as exaggerated and seeking to explain the directors' conduct. Having heard oral submissions from counsel, the court was satisfied that the just and equitable ground was made out and allowed the petitioner's application to wind up the company, directing that the costs and expenses of the liquidation, subject to allocatur, be paid out of the company's assets. The judgment was delivered by Ong Chee Kwan J. The decision is a useful illustration of how the just and equitable jurisdiction operates where a company has lost its substratum and the mutual trust between shareholders in what is effectively a quasi-partnership has irretrievably broken down, so that continuing the company in existence would serve no legitimate purpose, and it shows the court preferring a winding-up order over the continuation of a deadlocked and inactive enterprise. The court's treatment of the arguments shows that the just and equitable jurisdiction looks to the practical reality of a company that has ceased active trade and lost the mutual confidence on which it was founded, rather than to the parties' competing accounts of fault, and that a dispute over the quantum of the debts claimed does not defeat a petition once the equitable ground itself is established.