The firm’s dispute resolution team has been engaged in a wide variety of complex commercial and civil litigation. Within the sphere of corporate litigation, the firm is regularly engaged in respect of shareholder disputes, derivative and oppression actions, fraud investigations, directors’ liabilities and insolvency & liquidation disputes.
Our civil and commercial portfolio also includes regularly addressing contractual disputes, banking & finance disputes, professional negligence and disciplinary action, disputes relating to probate and administration of estates, partnership disputes, defamation, breach of confidence, land related disputes and administrative & constitutional challenges.
Our most recent notable briefs include:-
The team represented minority shareholders of a parent company incorporated in United Kingdom and listed in Germany in a claim for fraudulent transactions concerning a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Malaysia. Most significantly, in this action, the Malaysian Courts for the first time recognized that multiple derivative actions may be brought in Malaysia under common law. The Malaysian Courts also confirmed that leave from the Court of England & Wales was not required in order to proceed with a derivative action in respect of a company incorporated in the United Kingdom. The decision has had a significant impact on company law in Malaysia and has been widely referred to in subsequent court decisions, company law textbooks and articles.
The firm was appointed to act for the single largest contributory of a company in liquidation holding large parcels of estate land worth in excess of RM 500 million. In a highly contentious liquidation, an application to remove the liquidator was moved on grounds inter alia that the liquidator had attempted to outsource the liquidation to an accounting firm without the knowledge and approval of court or the contributories. In removing the liquidator, the Court of Appeal made significant pronouncements relating to the law on delegation of duties by liquidators, in particular, addressing the practice of wholesale delegation by liquidators and payments by liquidators.
The firm acted for one of Malaysia’s largest medical laboratories in a joint venture partnership dispute that concerned allegations of fraud, misappropriation of monies, assets, confidential information, business and clients. The firm successfully sought and obtained injunctive relief in the form of an Anton Piller Order for the disclosure and preservation of evidence, an injunction order to essentially stop unlawful usage of confidential information and infringement of intellectual property rights as well as a Mareva Order to freeze the assets of the partner and the alleged vehicles of fraud used in view of the risk of dissipation of assets. The brief was also unique in light of issues of jurisdiction pertaining to the two separate High Courts (i.e. the High Court of Malaya and the High Court of Sabah & Sarawak) that arose.
The firm represented a well-known developer in a financing dispute involving a government linked financial institution. The dispute involved claims for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, economic duress, illegality and unconscionability against the financial institution vis a vis the provision of a Islamic financing facility for a construction and development project. Significantly, the firm sought and successfully obtained an interlocutory injunction to restrain the financial institution from recalling the facility pending the determination of the suit. This matter was subsequently referred to the Syariah Advisory Council to determine Syariah related questions in respect of the legality of the Islamic financial instruments. The matter is currently pending trial.
The firm represented constituents from Kuala Kubu Bharu and Batang Kali affected by the Malaysian Election Commission’s decision to alter the Federal and State constituency boundaries under the Elections Act 1958. In an application for judicial review, the constituents sought to challenge the alterations on the basis that the Election Commission’s acts were unconstitutional, unreasonable and procedurally improper. The matter is currently pending before the Federal Court.