Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt

Person 1 case

Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

wa-24ncc-526-09-2023

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

MYHC 28 August 2025

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt

Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning August 2025 to August 2025. Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt?

Ivan Goh-lee En Tatt appears in 1 published judgment from August 2025 to August 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).

Practice Areas

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 1

Respondent (1)

wa-24ncc-526-09-2023 MYHC

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

28 August 2025