JCW

This is an Industrial Court case. Justin was the counsel for Kenanga (the Company) and assisted by Alvin. The case involved the Company’s application to amend its Statement In Reply to inter-alia include purported misrepresentation as a ground for the Plaintiff’s dismissal. More importantly, the novel point of law involved was whether the purported misrepresentation could be included as it was only discovered after the Claimant’s dismissal. We took the issue on behalf of the Company that such matters discovered after the employee’s dismissal is still relevant. The Court, in considering s30(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, allowed the Defendant’s application to amend its Statement in Reply, save for the paragraphs relating to this purported “misrepresentation” discovered after the dismissal of the Claimant has transpired. Note : On appeal by the Company to the High Court for review on this point, where Alvin was the counsel, the judicial review application was allowed by the High Court and the purported misrepresentation was allowed to be included in the Statement In Reply even though this purported misrepresentation was only discovered after the employee’s dismissal.

Justin was the counsel for Plastech (the Plaintiff) and assisted by Chooi Peng. This is a case by the third defendant to set aside the ex-parte application for leave to commence committal proceedings against all the Defendants for failure to comply with the judgment and order granted by the Court against the Defendants earlier after a Full Trial. The Court dismissed the application on the grounds inter-alia, that the third defendant has constructive knowledge of the terms of the judgment as he and other Defendant had formally applied for a stay of the Judgment and he has also waived the right to object to the ex-parte order by his own action by filing 2 affidavits to oppose the Plaintiff’s application for committal proceedings.

This case invloves a dispute on pre-tender works. This is a case on application under Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 to review the amount of RM60,000 of the getting up fees awarded by the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) and sought for it to be increased to RM150,000 which was allowed by the Court on the grounds that there were many complicated issues involved in this case and the solicitor and/or counsel for the defendants had to prepare their clients’ case in greater depth.

Justin was the counsel for Unijaya (Defendant). This is a case on claim for damages by the Plaintiff from the Defendant for sub-contract works allegedly done which was struck out due to the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with courts’ direction/ order on the case management. The Defendant on the other hand counter claimed against the Plaintiff for failure to carry out the works and subsequently abandoning the project site which was allowed by the Court and substantial damages were assessed against the Plaintiff.

Justin was the counsel for Unijaya (Plaintiff) and assisted by Alvin. This is a building contract case where judgment was entered against all Defendants which include the Directors of Syarikat Elektrik RBA Sdn Bhd for a debt due to the Plaintiff. The Defendants appealed against the Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR)’s decision to disallow the “4th Defendant’s” (which is not a party to the suit) application for an extension of time (encl 31) for the 2nd & 3rd defendants to file an application to set aside the judgment in default entered against them. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the SAR had a discretion to allow or disallow the defendant’s oral application to withdraw encl 31 which is “defective”.

Alvin was the counsel for Delphax (Respondent). This is a case on winding-up petition by the Petitioner against Delphax on the ground of Delphax’s “inability to pay” an undisputed judgment debt. Even though the case was not decided in favour of the Respondent, the Court has decided on points of law i.e. the procedural provisions including Rules 22, 25, 26 and 194 (1) of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules 1972 and Sections 4, 12, 20, 127, 176, 218, 243 and 350 of the Companies Act 1965. The High Court also held that the test to be applied is the test of “inability to pay” and in the event the “white knight” is able to discharge the liability of the Respondent, the liquidator or any creditor or contributory of the Respondent may apply for a permanent stay of the winding-up proceedings under Section 243(1) of the Companies Act 1965.

Justin was the counsel for Vivamall and assisted by Alvin. This is a case on an application for Quia timet injunction i.e. to restrain the defendants from approaching, interfering, contracting and harassing the plaintiffs and their family members arising from a commercial dispute which is pending arbitration. We believe this is the first reported case of such nature of injunction application allowed by Court in Malaysia in respect of a “commercial dispute” as most other cases relate to family/ private dispute.

Justin was one of the counsel for Tan Ming Yeow, the respondent. This is an appeal by the appellant against the High Court decision to strike out the appellant’s claim for substantial legal fees against the respondent which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal based on the doctrine of res judicata on the “wider sense” and consideration of important legal issues relating to the recovery of legal fees, taxation and bill of costs.