[Note: JCW was set up in April 2012 and cases below referred to before April 2012 will be in relation to cases where the respective partners of JCW was involved in whilst attached to other firms. Kindly note that the cases and synopsis set out below are subject to further legal advice from appropriate parties and/or research by parties referring to the same and/or intending to rely on the same]
Recent reported cases by the Partners and Lawyers of JCW :
Justin was the counsel for 4th & 5th defendants and assisted by Alvin. This is a case on striking out of the plaintiff’s case against the defendants based on alleged misrepresentation by the defendants to the public at large pursuant to a website and/or facebook under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulation 1989 and dismissal of an application for an interlocutory injunction against the defendants.
Chooi Peng and Alvin were the counsel for Affin Bank. This is a case for return of money remitted pursuant to forged remittance forms. After a full Trial, the Court ruled in favour of Affin Bank and this case canvass important principles such as “money had and received” and unjust enrichment.
Justin and Chooi Peng were co-counsel in this case for Dato’ Raja Azwane. This is a case on a dispute on whether the Director’s Circular Resolutions seeking to “resign/ remove” a director under the Companies Act 1965 is tainted with mala fides.
Alvin was the counsel for Mersing Construction. This is a case on a dispute as to whether the building contract is subject to arbitration or dispute adjudication board, which is a novel point in Malaysia.
Justin was the counsel for 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents. This is a case on striking out of certain prayers of a petition under Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965, as they are inter-alia not suitable under the said Section 181 jurisdiction.
Justin was the counsel for Couture Homes and assisted by Alvin. This is a case on striking out a case and a dismissal of an application for interlocutory injunction against the defendant and the allegation that the plaintiff was induced by the defendant’s oral representation to enter into the Sale and Purchase Agreement in respect of a unit LG-27 on the basis it had dual frontage and Couture Homes submitted that the unit has been renumbered to LG – 26 due to an amendment to the building plan. The Plaintiff’s application for an injunction was dismissed and Couture Homes application to strike out the case was allowed.
Justin was the counsel for SSF Curtain. This is a case by the petitioner (a minority shareholder) who claimed oppression under Section 181 of the Companies Act 1965.
Alvin was the co-counsel for Dindings Corporation. This is a case where the plaintiff applied to set aside an arbitration award (where the arbitration proceedings were conducted by Justin and Alvin) obtained by Dindings against the plaintiff and the case was decided by the High Court in favour of Dindings.