in the court of appeal malaysia (appellate jurisdiction)

(3) Using Company’s staff to look after Lawas store of 2 nd Respondent
The respondents admitted that a member of the 1 st respondent’s staff
(an accounts clerk) was used to look after the Lawas store and he was paid
by the 1 st respondent. The Managing Director (DW2) admitted during the
Board’s meeting and at the trial that it was wrong to do so and had stopped
this. She had instructed the Lawas store to make restitution of the salaries
paid to that member of the staff.
Since this issue was raised during the Board’s meeting and during the
trial where DW2 admitted it was wrong and she had stopped the practice and
requested for restitution from the Lawas store, we are of the opinion this
does not amount to oppression.
(4) Whether the learned judge was right in making the order that
the majority shareholder (the 2 nd respondent) has to sell its
shares to the minority shareholder (the petitioner)
The learned judge after finding that the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents had
oppressed the petitioner made the order that the 2 nd respondent to sell all its
70% shareholding in the Company to the petitioner. There is no dispute that
in the present appeal the 2 nd respondent is the majority shareholder holding
70% of the Company paid-up capital while the petitioner is the minority
84