Mohd Faiz bin Sazali

Person 1 case

Mohd Faiz bin Sazali 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 Mohd Faiz bin Sazali

Mohd Faiz bin Sazali appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning August 2025 to August 2025. Mohd Faiz bin Sazali appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Mohd Faiz bin Sazali?

Mohd Faiz bin Sazali 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