[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 Repco. This is a case on application for an urgent hearing date, interrogatories and case management procedure in a case involving trade secrets/confidential information between the employer and employees.
ustin was the counsel for Universiti Malaya (“UM”) in relation to land acquisition of the land owned by UM which was subject to compulsory acquisition. This is one of the few reported cases where the Land Acquisition Court proceedings is not just between the (previous) landowner (who is interested to increase the market value of the subject land) and the Land Administrator but also involves the agency applying for the acquisition (who is interested to reduce the market value of the subject land). The Court in this case amongst others held that the hearing at the High Court is an original hearing and the decision of the Land Administrator at the enquiry is an administrative decision.
Justin was the counsel for 4th & 5th defendants. In this case, Justin successfully extricated the 4th & 5th defendants from the suit at the Registrar level. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal but did not serve it and adjourned the Appeal until much later. The Appeal was dismissed by the Court as the failure and delay to serve the notice is in breach of the rules which require service before the first appeal hearing date has prejudiced the 4th & 5th defendants as they thought that they are no longer parties to the suit.
Justin was the counsel for Jupiter Securities. This case is an authority for the legal principle that an application to amend the pleadings (the statement of defence) to add an allegation of fraud would not be allowed if the facts relating to the fraud were known by the party making the application at the time the original pleading was filed.
Justin was the counsel for Soda KL Plaza. In this High Court decision, Justin has successfully set aside of an invalid Summons by the defendant which failed to comply with Form 1 of the relevant rules and also did not append a Notice of Appearance as required by the rules.
Justin was the counsel for the plaintiff, Tan Ah Chim. In this case, the plaintiff successfully obtained a summary judgment against the defendant for negligence in failing to file the Record of Appeal within the prescribed time resulting in the Appeal being struck out.
Justin was the counsel for Country Heights. This is a case on transfer of proceedings from the Subordinate Court to the High Court. A novel point was raised in the judgment in relation to Section 65(3) of the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 as to whether the application to transfer must first show that there is a refusal by the other side to agree under the said provision to enable the Sessions Court to have jurisdiction beyond the value limit. The High Court’s decision that this provision must first be resorted to was overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal decision/order was also reported in [1999] 3 CLJ 299.