in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

espondent that the petitioner wanted to wrest control of the Company
cannot be sustained.
Let us now turn to the issue of ‘disregard of interests’ and
‘oppression’ as found by the learned judge. As pointed out in the authorities
we have cited there are four broad classes of conduct that would justify
judicial remedy under section 181 of the Companies Act, namely: (a)
oppressive conduct; (b) conduct in disregard of interests; (c) unfairly
discriminatory conduct; or (d) prejudicial conduct. The learned judge found
the act of oppression or disregard of interests of the petitioner by the
respondents is in respect of:
(1) The loan of RM3.78 million and interest charged;
(2) Charging to the Petitioner the salaries of three members
of the staff of the 2 nd respondent; and
(3) Using the Petitioner’s staff to look after the affairs of the
2 nd Respondent.
We take note that the question whether there is oppression, disregard,
unfair discrimination, or whether the act complained of is prejudicial is one
that must be determined according to the facts of each particular case.
64