Federal Court Draws the Line on Minority Oppression Claims
20 May 2026
In ISM Sendirian Berhad v Queensway Nominees (Asing) Sdn Bhd & Ors and another appeal [2026] MLJU 1467, the Federal Court considered the relationship between a breach of a shareholders’ agreement and the statutory remedy for minority oppression under section 181 of the repealed Companies Act 1965 (“CA 1965”) (now section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”)).
The decision is significant as the Federal Court clarified the scope of its earlier decision in Jet-Tech Materials Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yushiro Chemical Industry Co Ltd & Ors [2013] 2 MLJ 297 (“Jet-Tech”) and held that a breach of a shareholders’ agreement is not automatically excluded from the ambit of a minority oppression claim. Rather, the critical inquiry is whether the impugned conduct relates to the “affairs of the company”, as required under section 181 of the CA 1965, and not merely to private contractual rights and obligations between shareholders.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the appellant’s complaints were, in substance, private disputes arising from the parties’ shareholders’ agreement, rather than matters concerning the affairs of the joint venture companies.
Background Facts
The dispute arose from a joint venture concerning a proposed mixed-use commercial development project at the junction of Jalan Imbi and Jalan Sultan Ismail in Kuala Lumpur (“Imbi Project”). ISM Sendirian Berhad (“ISM”) and MPHB Capital Berhad (“MPHB”) held 30% and 70% respectively of the equity in five joint venture companies (“JV Companies”) which were incorporated to acquire and hold land for the Imbi Project.
The parties had proceeded on the basis of an oral shareholders’ agreement. Although no formal shareholders’ agreement was executed, the parties accepted that the terms of the oral agreement were binding. The key dispute concerned the funding obligations of the parties. ISM contended that it was only required to contribute 30% of the cash portion of the funding, amounting to 9% of the total funds required. MPHB, on the other hand, contended that the funding obligations followed the agreed 30:70 equity split.
ISM commenced proceedings for minority oppression under section 181 of the CA 1965 on various grounds. The High Court found in favour of ISM on three grounds, namely MPHB’s demand that ISM contribute 30% of the purchase price for certain land, the implementation of a rights issue by three of the JV Companies which diluted ISM’s shareholding and the unilateral imposition by MPHB of interest on shareholder advances. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the dispute concerned private contractual arrangements between shareholders and did not fall within the scope of section 181.
The Leave Questions before the Federal Court
The Federal Court granted leave to ISM to appeal on two questions of law, which may be broadly summarised as follows:
- Whether Jet-Tech should be understood as permitting a breach of a shareholders’ agreement to found a minority oppression claim where the breach is accompanied by oppression, disregard of a shareholder’s interests, unfair discrimination or unfair prejudice; and
- Whether the proposition espoused in paragraph 37 (“Paragraph 37”) of Jet-Tech, i.e., that breaches of a shareholders’ agreement are private matters which are not actionable under section 181 of the CA 1965, is correct in law.
Decision of the Federal Court
Clarifying Paragraph 37 of Jet-Tech
The Federal Court said that Paragraph 37 should not be read as laying down an absolute rule that any breach of a shareholders’ agreement can never be actionable under section 181 of the CA 1965.
Instead, the correct position is that the complaint must relate to the “affairs of the company”. The Federal Court explained that Jet-Tech was decided on its factual context and that the emphasis in Jet-Tech was not on excluding all shareholders’ agreement disputes from section 181, but on the requirement that the complaint must relate to the conduct of the company’s affairs.
The Federal Court in this appeal clarified that in Jet-Tech, it was alleged that the majority shareholder had breached the shareholders’ agreement by refusing to allow a minority shareholder to remove the latter’s representatives as directors of the company. The learned judges in Jet-Tech emphasised that a complaint under section 181 of the CA 1965 must relate to the company’s affairs and the breach of the shareholders’ agreement in that case is not a matter relating to the company’s affairs but a private matter.
The Federal Court here added that Paragraph 37 was also to answer Question 3 of the leave questions in Jet-Tech, i.e., whether a breach by a majority shareholder of a shareholders’ agreement would amount to “oppressive conduct” or be “otherwise prejudicial” to a minority shareholder within the meaning of section 181(1)(a) or 181(1)(b) of the CA 1965.
According to the Federal Court, the Court in Jet-Tech had answered Question 3 in Paragraph 37 by holding that a breach of the shareholders’ agreement must relate to the affairs of the company to be actionable under section 181 of the CA 1965, a view with which the present appeal court agreed.
Affairs of the company
The Federal Court acknowledged that the phrase “affairs of the company” is not defined in Malaysian law but referred to Re: Cumberland Holdings Ltd 1 (1976) ACLR 361, where the Supreme Court of New South Wales explained that the phrase is to be widely construed and is not limited to business or trade matters, but encompasses capital structure, dividend policy, voting rights, consideration of take-over offers and all matters which may come before the board for consideration. However, the phrase cannot be equated with the private affairs of shareholders and does not extend to every dispute between shareholders merely because the dispute arises in the context of a corporate vehicle.
On the facts, the Court found that the JV Companies were essentially shell entities incorporated to hold land for the Imbi Project. They had no active business or operational affairs to manage. The dispute between ISM and MPHB was, in substance, a dispute over funding obligations under their private arrangement, rather than a complaint about the conduct of the affairs of the JV Companies.
Quasi-Partnership
On evidence, the Federal Court was of the view that the joint venture did not constitute a quasi-partnership and thus did not give rise to the application of the “just and equitable principles” to section 181. Before the Imbi Project, Dato’ Ray Cheah, a director and shareholder of ISM and the representatives of MPHB on the boards of the JV Companies did not have any personal or business relationship with each other (except for the occasional meeting at social events). Their dealings were brief and purely commercial and MPHB regarded the joint venture as any other commercial venture.
Analysis of the High Court’s findings
The Federal Court then considered the three grounds on which the High Court found that ISM had proven its case of oppression, unfair prejudice and disregard of its interest.
(i) Contribution of 30% of the purchase price for certain land
Based on evidence, ISM did not protest, and had in fact, made several payments equal to a 30% contribution towards certain project costs of the joint venture. Hence, the Federal Court rejected ISM’s contention that MPHB’s demand that ISM contributes 30% of the purchase price of a certain land to be purchased by one of the JV Companies amounted to oppressive conduct.
(ii) Rights issues
ISM contended that the rights issues were prejudicial to ISM as they diluted its 30% shareholding in three of the JV Companies. The Federal Court reiterated that the was no quasi-partnership between the parties. Further, Dato’ Ray Cheah had conceded that ISM’s shareholding would be diluted once all the lands are placed in the JV companies. In any event, the rights issues were permitted by the memoranda and articles of association of the relevant JV Companies and due notice of the implementation of same had been given to ISM. In light of the foregoing, ISM’s contention was rejected by the Federal Court.
(iii) Imposition of interest
The Federal Court did not accept ISM’s contention that the imposition of interest by MPHB unilaterally at the rate of 8% p.a. on the cash advances to the JV Companies constituted an act of oppression. Firstly, Dato’ Ray Cheah had conceded that none of the agreed terms between the parties relate to interest, and there was no agreement that the cash portion would be an interest-free advance. Further, MPHB’s interest costs on all advances to the JV Companies had been disclosed to ISM and MPHB’s transfer pricing guidelines were made known to ISM in writing.
The decision
The Federal Court answered the second leave question in the affirmative and affirmed the correctness of the statement in Paragraph 37 of Jet-Tech. The Federal Court found there was no need to answer the first leave question and dismissed both appeals.
Comments
This decision provides helpful clarification on the scope of the minority oppression remedy in Malaysia.
- The Federal Court did not close the door on minority oppression claims involving breaches of shareholders’ agreements. A shareholders’ agreement may still be relevant where the breach complained of translates into conduct affecting the company’s affairs, such as matters concerning board control, voting rights, dividend policy, capital structure or the exercise of directors’ powers.
- The decision confirms that the oppression remedy is not a substitute for a contractual claim. Where the substance of the dispute is that one shareholder has failed to perform its private contractual obligations, the appropriate remedy will generally lie in contract, not in section 181 of the CA 1965 or section 346 of the CA 2016.
- The structure and function of the corporate vehicle are important. Where a joint venture company is merely a passive holding vehicle with no active business, it may be difficult to show that the dispute concerns the company’s affairs. By contrast, where the joint venture company actively carries on business and the shareholders’ agreement governs matters integral to its management or operations, a minority oppression claim may still be available on appropriate facts.
The key takeaway from this case is therefore not that breaches of shareholders’ agreements are never actionable as oppression. Rather, the decisive question is whether the complaint is properly characterised as one concerning the affairs of the company, or merely a private dispute between shareholders.
Case Note by Sharon Chong (Partner) and Charmaine Denisha Lionel (Associate) of the Dispute Resolution Practice of Skrine.
This article/alert contains general information only. It does not constitute legal advice nor an expression of legal opinion and should not be relied upon as such. For further information, kindly contact skrine@skrine.com.