In brief

  •  The majority rule concept states that a corporation is governed by its majority shareholders. This is an important part of corporate governance and democracy. Ordinarily, the shareholders decide on matters of leadership, direction, and management. As a result, when it comes to management concerns and shareholder conflicts, Malaysian courts are largely non-interventionist. When a company’s minority shareholders are oppressed, however, there is an exception to this general norm. In such cases, the courts have broad discretionary powers to issue decisions ranging from a buyout to a winding-up order, which they frequently do.

Q. What amounts to oppression? Am I being oppressed? 

A. When the complainant can show that the majority was aware of the complainant’s rights and interests yet decided to ignore or act against them, this is considered oppressive conduct. Therefore, if you find yourself in this situation, you have the right to file for oppression in the court. 

Q. In this case, who is most likely to be oppressed?

A. The majority of oppression lawsuits are filed by the company’s minority shareholders. A minority shareholder does not have enough voting power to exert control over a firm or substantial influence over its direction just because they own a minority stake in it. Internally, the majority principle governs the overall dynamics of a firm and its operations, with the majority’s viewpoint taking precedence over that of the minority. 

Example: In the case of Safari Alliance Sdn Bhd v Tan Lee Chin & Ors [2022] 7 MLJ 27  by virtue of her position as Deputy Chairperson of the Board of Directors, the 1st Defendant declared herself as the meeting’s Chairperson. The Chairperson then announced the rejection of five proxy forms. On June 23, 2020, the Plaintiff filed a civil action under section 346 of the CA 2016, alleging oppression. Essentially, the oppression action aimed to overturn the Chairperson’s AGM decisions. The rejection of the 5 proxy forms and the withdrawal of the proposed resolutions on the Plaintiff’s proposed 6 additional directors, in particular. Second, to declare the AGM’s outcomes null and void, and to replace them with a conclusion that the Plaintiff claimed was the AGM’s unavoidable consequence. Nonetheless, the Court determined the legality of the chairperson’s conduct in this case, because the Chairperson noted that the rejected proxy forms were faulty because they did not mention any persons or the Chairperson as proxy. The shareholders who submitted the rejected proxy forms were not parties to the Plaintiff’s legal action, as previously stated. She had also sought legal advice and used her discretion as chairman to withdraw these planned resolutions.

When may a minority shareholder file an oppression lawsuit in court?

  •  The supremacy of the majority is a fundamental principle of company law and the general rule is that the minority will have to subscribe to the rule of the majority. Being consistently outvoted at meetings is not an oppressive conduct. Displacing the minority’s influence does not amount to a wrong, unless it is expressed in (i) a Shareholders’ Agreement; or (ii) otherwise provided for in the Articles or Constitution of the company. However, a wrong is committed when the majority rule turns into a rule oppressive of the minority members. 
  •  In cases when the majority rule has been exploited, the Companies Act 2016 provides minority shareholders with the tools they need to fight back. In such a case, an unhappy shareholder will sue the firm in his or her personal role as a shareholder.
  •  The legal standard for oppression is whether the treatment of a shareholder is commercially unjust. Commercial unfairness is determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a range of variables such as the nature of the connection in question, the parties’ expectations, any existing agreements, and any common understanding among business members.

Recent Post


This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »


This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »


In the intricate dance of land security and loan agreements, the ticking clock of the limitation period cannot be ignored. This excerpt delves into the critical understanding of how the 12-year limitation period, as prescribed by the Limitation Act 1953, plays a pivotal role in the enforcement of property charges in Malaysia. It elucidates the start time of this countdown and its legal implications, providing a comprehensive guide for both lenders and borrowers in navigating these time-sensitive waters.

Read More »


Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code 1965, Malaysia’s land law and transactions are guided by the Torrens System, which ensures that the land registry accurately reflects all vital details about the land’s registered owner. As per Section 89 of the National Land Code.

Read More »


The annulment of marriage in Malaysia is regulated under the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act 1976. A distinction is made between a void marriage, which is deemed invalid from the time of solemnisation, and a voidable marriage, which remains valid from solemnisation until annulled by the court.

Read More »
× How can I help you?