Lee Zii Jia Seeks Court Restrictions on Father and Sister in Management Company Dispute

Application Targets Payments and Control of LZJ Management

Malaysian badminton player Lee Zii Jia has asked the Kuala Lumpur High Court to restrict financial and corporate decisions by his father and older sister at LZJ Management Sdn Bhd, while also seeking a meeting that could change the company's leadership.

The originating summons, dated July 2, 2026, carries case number WA-24NCC-400-07/2026. It names his father, Lee Chee Hin, his sister, Lee Zii Yii, his younger brother, Lee Tao, and the company as respondents. Chee Hin and Zii Yii are both company directors.

Zii Jia wants an interim injunction preventing his father and sister from approving directors' fees, allowances, bonuses or other financial benefits for themselves beyond their monthly salaries. He also seeks restrictions on major corporate decisions without court approval, including changes to directors, assets and share ownership.

The application is contested. In a reply affidavit filed on August 6, Chee Hin disputed the need for court intervention and said the company continued to manage matters concerning his son's professional badminton career. Zii Yii and Tao have also challenged the allegations and the orders sought.

The distinction between an application and a ruling is central to the dispute. Zii Jia has requested restrictions, but no decision granting them is reported. His allegations and the respondents' objections remain for the court to consider.

Monthly Salaries Would Remain Outside the Proposed Ban

The requested financial restrictions are narrower than a complete freeze on payments to the two directors. Chee Hin and Zii Yii would still be allowed to receive their respective monthly salaries. The proposed injunction targets additional benefits they might approve for themselves while proceedings continue.

Those benefits include directors' fees, allowances and bonuses. The reported application does not give the salary amounts, identify the value of any disputed payment or establish that a particular benefit was improperly approved. Seeking a restriction is not itself proof of financial misconduct.

An interim injunction is a temporary court order intended to regulate conduct while a dispute is being resolved. Here, the requested order would limit specified decisions during the case, rather than determine every issue concerning the company's management. The court must consider whether the proposed restrictions are justified.

Corporate Decisions Would Require Court Approval

Zii Jia's application extends beyond remuneration. He wants Chee Hin and Zii Yii prevented from making several decisions without prior court approval, covering both who runs LZJ Management and how its ownership or assets might change.

• Appointing or removing company directors.
• Appointing the company secretary.
• Disposing of major company assets.
• Issuing new shares.
• Changing the company's shareholding structure.

These requests concern distinct forms of control. Directors manage a company's affairs, while shareholders hold ownership interests. A company secretary handles formal corporate administration. Changing any of these arrangements can affect how decisions are made and recorded.

The request concerning new shares also matters separately from the request concerning assets. Issuing additional shares can alter existing owners' percentage interests, depending on who receives them. Selling major assets changes what the company owns. Neither action is reported as having occurred in this dispute; both appear among the decisions Zii Jia wants placed under court supervision.

The proposed restrictions therefore address several ways the company's position could change before the case is resolved. They are not described as a general prohibition on every routine activity of the business.

A Claimed 90% Stake and a Disputed Minority Detail

Zii Jia says he holds 90% of LZJ Management, while Zii Yii holds 9%. Most reports identify Tao as the owner of the remaining 1%, matching the ownership breakdown in the account of the court application.

One report instead assigns that 1% interest to Chee Hin. Reports therefore differ on the identity of the smallest shareholder. Without a reported court determination or a company ownership record resolving that difference, the competing accounts should not be treated as interchangeable.

Under either account, the stated minority interests total 10%, compared with Zii Jia's claimed 90%. His interest would be nine times the combined minority holdings. That arithmetic describes the reported ownership balance, not a finding that he can exercise every corporate power without following the company's meeting and governance requirements.

The dispute illustrates the difference between owning most of a company and being able to secure a particular corporate decision. Zii Jia is seeking a court ordered meeting despite his claimed majority stake, saying the company's management and administration have reached a deadlock.

A Failed Meeting Led to a Request for Court Intervention

In his supporting affidavit, Zii Jia said an attempt to hold an extraordinary general meeting on December 22 of the preceding year failed because the required quorum was not reached. In the context of the reporting dated October 2026, that places the attempted meeting on December 22, 2025.

A quorum is the minimum attendance required for a meeting to conduct business validly. The failed meeting is an important part of his case: his request is not simply for another discussion, but for court approved arrangements intended to let a meeting proceed.

Zii Jia, the applicant and claimed majority shareholder, described the company's position in his originating summons as follows:

management and administrative deadlock

He wants the extraordinary general meeting held within 14 days of a court order, or within another period set by the court. He also seeks authority to issue and serve the meeting notice and to appoint an independent chairman.

Under the proposed arrangements, the meeting could proceed despite the absence of certain directors, members or the company secretary. Its proposed agenda includes possible removal of existing directors, appointment of new directors and a company secretary, and other corporate matters.

These remain requested arrangements, not an announced meeting date or an approved change in leadership. The proposed 14 day period would begin only if the court makes the relevant order, unless it chooses a different timetable.

The Respondents Say the Company Is Still Operating

Chee Hin's response challenges the need for judicial intervention. His August 6 reply affidavit says LZJ Management continued to handle matters relating to Zii Jia's professional badminton career, presenting a different account from the deadlock alleged by his son.

He referred to the company's four year agreement with sports brand Victor, running from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2028. Chee Hin argued that the agreement and its financial contributions were important to company operations and support for Zii Jia's career.

The contract provides a concrete commercial issue within the family dispute. Its stated term extends beyond the July 2026 filing and through the end of 2028. However, no contract value, payment schedule or detailed contractual obligations are reported, and there is no reported finding that the agreement has been breached or terminated.

Chee Hin's affidavit also addressed disagreements over payments and the use of Zii Jia's name and image. A joint affidavit filed on behalf of Zii Yii and Tao disputed the allegations and challenged the requested relief. The reported details do not establish which side's account the court accepts.

How the Dispute Reached This Stage

The proceedings connect an unsuccessful company meeting with later applications and objections. The main reported dates are:

• January 1, 2025: The stated term of LZJ Management's agreement with Victor began.
• December 22, 2025: An attempted extraordinary general meeting failed for lack of quorum, according to Zii Jia's supporting affidavit.
• July 2, 2026: Zii Jia filed the originating summons seeking an interim injunction and a court ordered meeting.
• August 6, 2026: Chee Hin filed a reply affidavit opposing the need for court intervention.
• October 12, 2026: Reporting described the application as contested and still subject to court consideration.
• December 31, 2028: The stated Victor agreement term is scheduled to end.

No hearing date or ruling date is reported. The next procedural step therefore cannot be assigned a confirmed calendar deadline. The 14 day meeting period is part of Zii Jia's request, not a deadline already imposed by the court.

Career Management Continues Alongside Competition

LZJ Management was established to handle Zii Jia's commercial and career affairs after he turned professional and left the Badminton Association of Malaysia. Zii Yii also manages her brother's professional badminton career, giving the dispute a direct connection to his sporting and commercial arrangements.

The legal proceedings have unfolded alongside tournament competition. Zii Jia was reported as ranked 56th in the world and recently reached the men's singles semifinals at the Arctic Open in Vantaa, Finland.

He defeated France's second seed Christo Popov 21-11, 21-16 in the quarterfinals before losing to Denmark's Anders Antonsen. The result formed part of his effort to return to the world's top 50. It does not resolve the separate disagreements over company control, payments or use of his name and image.

The unresolved legal issues are specific: whether temporary restrictions should be imposed, whether a company meeting should be ordered, and what arrangements should govern that meeting. No reported ruling settles those questions or determines the truth of the competing allegations.

Key Points

• Lee Zii Jia seeks an interim injunction in Kuala Lumpur High Court case WA-24NCC-400-07/2026.
• The proposed payment restrictions would allow his father and sister to continue receiving monthly salaries.
• Specified decisions on directors, major assets and share ownership would require court approval under the requested order.
• Zii Jia claims 90% ownership; reports differ on whether Tao or Chee Hin holds the remaining 1% alongside Zii Yii's 9%.
• He seeks an extraordinary general meeting within 14 days of an order, or another period set by the court.
• The respondents oppose the application, and no ruling or hearing date is reported.