JCW

Justin was the counsel for Albilt Resources and assisted by Alvin. This is an appeal in relation to an application for stay of the proceedings and to refer the dispute to arbitration. The Court of Appeal held that all PAM contracts have an Arbitration clause and where the main letter of award referring to a PAM contract was adopted in the impugned letter of award, the Arbitration clause in the PAM contract is similarly adopted.

Justin was the counsel for Proton Parts. This is an appeal to strike out the cause of action based on slander by the respondent. The Court of Appeal propounded the principle that conduct per se cannot amount to slander.

Alvin was the co-counsel for Wong Yu Ke. This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the High Court in favour of Wong Yu Ke where bare allegation of fraud is not a defence that could create exception under Section 340 of the National Land Code and cannot defeat the indefeasible title of Wong Yu Ke. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal.

Justin was the counsel for HTC and assisted by Alvin. This case involves summary judgment in respect of recovery of sums due for services rendered and the High Court took into account and admitted e-mail correspondences to support the entry of summary judgment against the defendant.

Justin was the counsel for Proton Edar and assisted by Alvin. This is a case on application for judicial review for an order of certiorari to quash the award of the Consumer Claims Tribunal.

Justin was the counsel for New Heritage and assisted by Alvin. This is a case on injunction and setting aside of ex-parte injunction in a loan transaction involving issues of fraud and forgery. The main principle in this case is in relation to an abuse of process and that a party cannot act on the Order without first serving it.

Justin was the counsel for Mulia Cemerlang and assisted by Alvin. This is a case for removal of caveat lodged by Mulia Cemerlang on the land where the right to enter caveat was expressly agreed by the plaintiff in the various agreements executed with Mulia Cemerlang. The application to remove the caveat was dismissed in favour of Mulia Cemerlang.

Justin was the counsel for the 4th defendant. In this case, the High Court allowed the plaintiff’s application for further and better particulars against the defendants. The High Court found that a particular paragraph in the defence lacks particulars sufficient to enable the plaintiff to prepare its case for trial