JCW

Justin was the counsel for the second respondent/ second defendant and assisted by Alvin. In dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal with costs, the Federal Court held that the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence of fraud, actual or equitable, or of any special circumstances that would have justified the lifting the veil of incorporation of the defendants. The pleading that the 1st and 2nd Defendants are part of a group of family companies with common/connected shareholders were insufficient and there is no further allegation that the plaintiff was not awarded the sub-contract works as a result of manipulation or abuse of the “single entity” by the defendants. Since the first defendant was not awarded the subcontract works for the project, the plaintiff also could not be awarded the sub-subcontract works and the pre-tender agreement was therefore void.

Justin was the counsel for the Plaintiff in an application for Summary Judgment pursuant to Order 81 of the Rules of the Court for an Order for Specific Performance of Share Subscription Agreement (“SSA”). The Plaintiff was successful in the said application whereby the Court held that since the Defendants failed to fulfill the condition precedents under the said SSA, the Plaintiff is entitled to effect the transfer of the relevant land to itself as its nominee.

Justin and HV Yoong were the counsels for the applicants who were the first and second respondents in the winding up petition. One of the main issues before the Court was whether the applicants had the locus standi to institute the contempt actions. The High Court in allowing the applicants order for committal held that any party having sufficient interest in the outcome of the case can in law initiate an action for committal. On the facts and in law, the applicants being shareholders/ contributories of the company had sufficient interest and capacity in the matter to bring the contempt action that is premised upon breach of the order obtained by the applicants for removal of liquidator.

Chooi Peng was the counsel for the respondents/plaintiff in respect of a dispute between 2 landowners concerning the issue of encroachment and equitable right of way. The High Court allowed the respondents’ / plaintiffs’ claim for equitable right of way and encroachment and granted damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeal partially reversed the decision of the High Court and held that such claim for an equitable right of way was in the nature of an easement and not for a right of way under Section 390 of the National Land Code.

Justin and Alvin were the co-counsel for the appellant in this case where the counsel was Mr. Lim Kian Leong. This case concerning an appeal against the High Court’s decision in allowing the Respondent’s application under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 for stay of the proceedings pending the matter to be referred to arbitration. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and decided that the question of whether the arbitration clause was part of the contract of insurance is a matter that goes to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The Court of Appeal considered Section 10(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 in the said Judgment.

Justin was the counsel for the first and second respondents (‘Ker Boon Kee and Ker Min Choo’). This is a case concerning an application by the 1st and 2nd Respondents for committal order against the court appointed liquidator and involved the issue as to whether the failure by the liquidator to hand over the relevant documents to the Official Receiver in accordance with the Court Order to remove the liquidator is contempt of the Court.

Justin was the counsel for the plaintiffs. This case involved a bungalow unit which was not built by the developer in accordance with the Sale and Purchase Agreement and the building plan in respect of the front car porch where the length of the car porch was reduced when the unit was delivered to the Purchasers (the Plaintiffs). Therefore, the plaintiffs (Purchaser) sued for inter-alia rescission of the sale and purchase agreement and refund of the purchase price plus damages for breach of contract. However, the Court entered judgment in favour of the purchasers (plaintiffs) for damages for the breach. The Court did not allow the prayer for rescission of the contract on the basis that the plaintiffs had renovated the property. The Court held that the evidence do not show consent by the purchasers to the changes of the layout plan and the mere initial or signature of the purchaser on the amended floor plan without anything more cannot signify consent to the changes but mere acknowledgement of receipt.

Justin was the counsel for the plaintiff. In this case, the High Court dismissed the 1st Defendant’s application to set aside the Court Order striking out the defendant’s defence by reason of the 1st Defendant’s delay in filling the witness statement and the breach of the Court’s “Unless Order” by the 1st Defendant. The delay in filling the witness statement purportedly caused by the change of witnesses and “cuti raya” were unacceptable and not a good reason to justify the delay.