1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2. ) MOHD FAIZ BIN SAZALI

wa-24ncc-526-09-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 28 August 2025 • WA-24NCC-526-09/2023 • 41 min read

7 cases cited (0 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

section 351 of the CA 2016 [replacing section 368A of the Companies Act 1965]-Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to seek the remedies sought under section 351 of the CA 2016-Origin of section 351 CA 2016-section 80 of the Australian Trade Practices Act 1974-section 149 of the Australian Securities Industry Act 1980-section 1324 of the Corporations Act 2001-section 368A of the Companies Act 1965-Companies (Amendment) Act 2007, now-statutory injunctive relief for shareholders and members of the public to prevent breaches of the CA 2016 and to overcome the technicalities associated with the Foss and Harbottle rule-Companies (Amendment) Act 2007-Report on Corporate Governance” by the High-Level Finance Committee in February 1999-The Courts have interpreted the statutory injunctive relief provision broadly and have allowed a plaintiff to obtain relief to prevent actual or proposed conduct in contravention of the company’s code-Remedies available under section 351 CA 2016-Under section 351 CA 2016, an injunction order and damages can be granted as these are expressly provided. An order for the disclosure of documents can also be granted-Declaratory reliefs can also be granted-disputes of facts which require the OS to be dismissed with liberty to file a writ action-It is trite law that proceedings may only be begun by Originating Summons where there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of facts-a party beginning an action by way of an originating summons when he should have begun by a writ should withdraw the originating summons and file a fresh writ action-proceedings under section 351 CA 2016 shall be commenced by way of originating summons as this is mandated by Order 88 Rule 2 of the Rules of Courts 2012

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Cheang & Ariff Firm Haris Ibrahim Kandiah Partnership Firm Celinne Teh Counsel Defendant Cindy Goh Joo Seong Counsel Plaintiff Jessye Ng Ann Jerl Counsel Plaintiff Mishand Pathmanathan Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

FENG YU HOLDINGS Sdn Bhd Applicant Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt Respondent Mohd Faiz bin Sazali Respondent Poh Kee Lock Applicant

Case Significance

1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 28, 2025 (citation: wa-24ncc-526-09-2023). The case was decided by Leong Wai Hong.

What was the outcome of 1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2...?

1. ) POH KEE LOCK 2. ) FENG YU HOLDINGS SDN BHD v 1. ) IVAN GOH-LEE EN TATT 2... is a High Court decision dated August 28, 2025. The case was heard by Leong Wai Hong. See the full judgment for details.

Statutes Cited

Civil Law Act 1956

s 11

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)

s 351

Cases Cited (7)

UK (1)

[1976] 1 All ER 779

MY (6)

[1991] 3 MLJ 201 [2005] 2 AMR 650 [2005] 2 CLJ 889 [2005] 6 MLJ 239 [2009] MLJU 1249 [2025] MLJU 2726

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-526-09-2023)