Successfully represented the Bank in:

• Obtained an urgent stay of the Order of the High Court of Malaya to resist a Writ of Seizure proceeding by a former employee.
  
  We then proceeded to take over conduct and to  represent the Bank in a landmark public law case which held that a decision by a public authority, i.e the EPF, in exercise of its investigative powers was not amenable to judicial review – at the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.: W-02(A)-1498-08/2016 and W-02(A)-1541-08/2016 and  before a 7 member Panel of the Federal Court Civil Appeal No.: 08-57-02/2018(w) and 08-56-02/2018(w) Tan Giap How v AmInvestment Bank Berhad & 1 Ors.
  

• Successfully defended the Bank in a claim of RM34million brought by an account holder for an alleged wrongful reporting of his status of a debt to CCRIS – in the High Court and in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.: W-02(NCC)(W)-1954-12/2020 L. Manikavel A/L Letchumanan v AmBank (M) Berhad.
• a landmark case which upheld the formation of the 1st in-house union in the clerical grade in the Banking sector (Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Bank (NUBE) v Ketua Pengarah Kesatuan Sekerja (DGTU) & Ors [2006] 1 LNS 289).
• a public law challenge against the decision of the Minister of Human Resources declining to entertain a claim for collective bargaining by the National Union of Bank Employees (NUBE) (Kesatuan Kebangsaan Pekerja-pekerja Bank v Menteri Sumber Manusia & Ors [2011] 10 CLJ 330);
• Successfully represented the Bank in Public Law proceedings to contest the legality of the expansion of the scope of the Association of Bank Officers. The exposure was estimated at RM 300 million.
• Successfully represented the Bank in Ambank (M) Berhad v Menteri Sumber Malaysia & Anor and other appeal [2014] 1 LNS 686 which led to a striking off of the trade dispute proceedings filed by ABOM.
• Acted for the Bank to preserve its system of variable rewards and to uphold the value add principle as the premise for annual increment claims in Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai Bank Semenanjung Malaysia v Ambank (M) Berhad [2019] 4 ILR 58 and Persatuan Pegawai-Pegawai Bank Semenanjung Malaysia v Ambank (M) Berhad [2019] 2 LNS 2605. These decisions preserved the Bank’s unique system of variable rewards.
• Successfully represented the Bank in the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. W-01(A)-619-11/2020 involving an employee who was dismissed for the non-compliance of Directives issued by the highest authority of the Bank i.e. the Group Chief Executive Officer.
• Successfully represented and advised the Bank in connection with legal proceedings against Alliance bank Malaysia Berhad pertaining to alleged breaches of confidential information. The proceedings entailed regulatory issues and was concluded in a settlement.

Berjaya

Represented the Group in:

• Industrial and Civil proceedings.
  
  Successfully represented the Company in industrial law class action proceedings who sought to challenge Covid 19 rationalization measures under the IRA 1967 inter alia alleging that the retrenchment exercise carried out by the Company was not bona fide – Award Nos. 2401 to 2405 of 2022 between Azim Bin Mahmud & 4 Ors v Berjaya Waterfront Sdn Bhd.
  

• Defamation proceedings
• Successfully defended the Group in shareholders dispute involving Granasia Corporation and others [2011] 1 LNS 1343.
• Disputes with unit owners of Berjaya Times Square arising from the delayed completion and handover of the same.
• Disputes over the termination of distribution rights and fiduciary obligations arising, we had in this regard injuncted the call on performance guarantees.

Advised on issues arising from the reorganization of – MOL Group, MITV, Sun Media & Ors, Tropicana Medical Centre & Ors and represented the Group in legal proceedings arising.

• represented subsidiary company in CIPAA proceedings in defence to alleged breaches of conditions under PAM Contract 2006 in claims in excess of RM 500m in aggregate.
• representing IOI Pan-Century Edible Oils Sdn Bhd and IOI Pan-Century Oleochemicals Sdn Bhd in defending summons issued by Department Of Environment under Environmental Quality Act 1974 and its regulations.
• intervening in Public Law Proceedings by minority shareholder against the Securities Commission (SC) and striking out the same. Sustained the decision in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Federal Court (Tuan Haji Zulkifli bin Haji Hussain v Suruhanjaya Sekuriti & 2 Ors [2005] 1 CLJ 345).
• successfully defended IOI in a private law action by a minority shareholder arising from the take over of Palmco Holdings Berhad (Tuan HJ Zulkifli & Ors v IOI Corporation Bhd & Ors [2012] 4 CLJ 401).
• successfully represented the Group in land reference appeals in connection with Kesas Highway and South Klang Valley Expressway (SKVE) acquisitions.
• Represented the Group in legal proceedings against the state of Negeri Sembilan over land encroachment and mineral extraction rights.
• successfully represented the Group in an action by former partners of the Pamol Group in a claim for over RM 180 million.
• represented the Group in proceedings with the vendors of Pamol Group for alleged breaches of warranty.
• SIAC arbitration against the vendors of Pan-Century Edible Oils for breaches of warranties and claims relating to a water treatment plant at Pasir Gudang.
• Successfully defended the Group in a complex Product liability claims by Royal Soap LLC, which entailed the international trade in speciality products.
• Successfully defended the Group in Gulf Asia Oils And Fats Sdn Bhd V. IOI Edible Oils Sdn Bhd & Ors [2014] 1 LNS 981 an injunction filed by the Plaintiff to restrain the Defendants from presenting a petition for winding-up against the Plaintiff. The Claim was in excess of RM 200 million.
• Numerous domestic & cross border commodity trading claims and disputes, inclusive of claims against fertilizer suppliers.
• Worked together with Jones Day to initiative mediation proceedings under the Swiss Civil Code to review the Action taken by RSPO on the Group’s certification.
• Employment disputes at the Industrial Court – e.g. Vijaya Kumar v Jegathison v Commercial Wings Sdn Bhd [2019] 3 ILR 594 which concerted complex and technical evidence in relation to the operation of a carpark and Dynamic Management Sdn Bhd v Yang Poh Lam [2003] 3 ILR 600 which followed a restructuring initiative post the 1997 recession.
• Successfully represented the Group in legal proceedings associated with their various real estate development projects involving consultants, contractors and purchasers.

• Successfully represented the Company in fiduciary disputes arising from the sale and marketing of its products and services, the interference with proprietary rights and interests.
• Advised the principal shareholders on the divestment of Diners’ Units in the region.

Appointed as co-counsel with Nabarro LLP and Gordon Jaynes in claims made by Sato Kogyo (M) Sdn Bhd arising from the Ulu Jelai Hydroelectric Project Contract TNB encompassing the Access Roads, Engineer’s Site Office, Platform and Associated Works valued at RM199,276,903.21.

• Represented the Group in:
  • successive collective agreement claims and trade disputes.
  • fiduciary issues over plant management and investigative audits thereto.
  • Successfully represented the Group in employment law and trade dispute proceedings arising from their collective agreements, business re-organization and the right to downsize and re-structure. This includes a landmark decision in the right of outsourcing as a managerial prerogative:
  • • Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Simen (SM) v Lafarge Cement Berhad [2013] 3 ILR 632
  • • Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Simen (SM) v Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd [2010] 2 ILR 621
  • • Lafarge Malayan Cement (APMC) Sdn Bhd v Kesatuan Pekerja-pekerja Perusahaan Simen (SM) [2006] 4 ILR 2483 refd (1)
  • • Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd v Cement Industry Employees Union [2005] 1 ILR 268
  • Successfully represented the Group in Industrial Law proceedings – Abu Hanifah Hassan v Associated Pan Malaysia Cement Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 LNS 1335 & 7 other similar Awards.
  • Successfully moved public law proceedings before the High Court to quash 5 Industrial Court’s Awards in Judicial Review Application No.: WA-25-347-11/2020 to WA-25-351-11/2020.

Successfully represented the Group in a class Industrial Law proceedings: Taranjit Singh Sekhon Taram Singh v Hume Cement Sdn Bhd [2022] 2 LNS 0177 & 11 other similar Awards relating to the Company’s reorganization and downsizing.

• Advised the Group on legal and employment law issues following the growth, re-organisation and rationalization of key divisions e.g. Power Generation, Transportation Systems and the Knowledge sector.
• Successfully represented the Group successive challenges by employees who contested management actions in:
• Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Abdul Samad Yusof [2007] 3 ILR 203
• Siemens Electrical Engineering Sdn Bhd v Reiner Jacobus Bernardus Bouwmeester [2004] 1 ILR 254
• Siemens Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Cheong Kok Leng [2004] 1 ILR 195

• Advised the Group on numerous legal and employment issues arising from the largest merger exercises in the country ie between Sime Darby Group, Guthrie and Golden Hope e.g. migration of business and personnel, harmonization of contracts etc.

• Advised the Group on fiduciary issues and forensic audits over:

• • The cost escalations and civil engineering contracts the Bakun Hydro-Electric Project;

• • Futures Trading Losses in Golden Jomalina Food Industries Sdn Bhd and tender issues in Tractors Malaysia Berhad.

• Advised upon regulatory issues over professional accounting firms and action taken thereon.

• Advised the Automotive Division in regards to the acquisition of the Porsche and BMW marques and the reorganization of AMIS Manufacturing Assets.

• Successfully represented the Group in an employment law claim by a Senior employee against his mobilization to the Bakun Project (Zulkifli Abdul v Sime Engineering Services Berhad [2011] 2 LNS 0127).

Advised upon employment law arising from the establishment of the establishment of a regional electronics union and their legal scope of representation and competence. Our engagement involved complex and technical distinctions between categories of functions and responsibilities.

Successfully represented WD in public law proceedings arising in the High Court.

Successfully acted for the Company in two appeals relating to public law proceedings, where the sole evidence was in the form of CCTV recordings and related raw data. We succeeded in reversing the decision of the High Court and the Court of first instance.

Successfully represented the Company in regard to numerous civil and commercial proceedings e.g. against See Asia Navigation Sdn Bhd and Greenhill Agro Pte Limited concerning trades in paddy commodities. These included proceedings before the AIAC, in Singapore and in the commercial courts exceeding USD 200m.

Successfully acted for the Company in Industrial Law proceedings concerning irregularities in the operation of a paddy storage and processing facility and technical evidence in relation to such operations

• Nordin Ahmad v Padiberas Nasional Berhad [2022] 2 ILR 425
• Mohd Alieff Zainal v Padiberas Nasional Berhad [2022] 2 LNS 0424

We had also represented the Company in a legal challenge by a Senior employee who had been discharged following breaches of safety and regulatory parameters. See: Mohamad Nazeri bin Yahaya v Padiberas Nasional Berhad & Mahkamah Perusahaan Malaysia Judicial Review Application No. KA-25-15-12/2020.

We had successfully defended the Company in claims for bonuses by the Union in Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Padiberas Nasional Berhad (KPPbNB) lwn. Padibears Nasional Berhad (BERNAS) [2019] 2 LNS 0445.

• Advised and acted for the Group on a wide range of contractual issues concerning the purchase of raw materials, the arbitration of disputes and the litigation of claims. In this regard we have dealt with regulatory standards concerning rubber, latex and the manufacture of specialty products thereon. We have extensively dealt with contractual structures concerning this commodity and the sale of finished products.
• Advised and represented the Company in regard to fiduciary and governance issues in regard to various aspects of their operations.
• Advised and represented the Company in regard to trade disputes and claims involving its subsidiary. We had been successful in achieving significant economies through a review of the incumbent Collective Agreement.

Advised and successfully represented MRCB George Kent Sdn Bhd in Industrial Law proceedings:

• Following the review and rationalization of the LRT Line 3 project, a downsizing initiative was implemented. We successfully represented the Group in the legal challenges which ensued e.g. Georg Josef Pauli v MRCB George Kent Sdn Bhd [2020] 2 LNS 1695.
• Successfully defended MRCB Engineering Sdn Bhd in a civil claim for retirement benefits by an employee in Sessions Court.
• Successfully defended MRCB and MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd in a claim by a managerial employee in the legal department. (See: Ganason a/l Arumugam and Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad Industrial Court Award No. 404 of 2023).

• Successfully represented the Company in a collective agreement dispute for employees in the Metal Industry before the Industrial Court and High Court – Judicial Review Application No.: WA-25-78-02/2020 Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Logam v George Kent (Malaysia) Berhad and BA-25-43-04/2019 George Kent (Malaysia) Berhad v Kesatuan Pekerja-Pekerja Perusahaan Logam.The proceedings paved the way for the restructuring of the Collective Agreement and the introduction of a PLWS system to replace the traditional wage regime.
  

• Successfully represented the Company in High Court Judicial Review Proceedings Application No. WA-25-514-11/2019 Loo Cheng Teck v George Kent (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd arising from employee’s claims for dismissal without just cause or excuse in the Industrial Court.
• Advised the Company in relation to claims and disputes arising from the supply of water meters and its performance.

Successfully represented the Company in High Court Judicial Review Proceedings Application No. JA-25-15-04/2021- Abdul Mutalib Mohamad v SWM Greentech Sdn Bhd arising from employee’s claims for dismissal without just cause or excuse in the Industrial Court – where the case involved employee’s breach of fiduciary standards and failure to exercise due case and control over checks and balances upon operational transactions. This involved the use of audio recordings of incriminating conversations.

Successfully represented the Company in the Industrial Court proceedings in Rosni Tumin v SWM Environment Sdn Bhd [2019] 2 LNS 2948. The Company had on the balance of probabilities proven that the Claimant had committed misconduct of sexual harassment of at least 4 employees.

• In Ansell Industrial & Specialty Gloves Malaysia Sdn Bhd v Lim Im Tee & Anor & Another case [2021] 1 LNS 2002, we had taken over conduct of the proceedings after the Industrial Court and moved the High Court on an urgent basis for an interim stay. The case concerned the expiration of a fixed term contract, the powers of the Minister to grant an exemption order under the MRA 2012 and to lead evidence of gazette notifications which were not introduced into evidence during the Industrial Court stage. The High Court intervened and quashed the Award.
• In Mohammad Faris Basri & Ors v Ansell NP Sdn Bhd [2016] 3 ILR 546, we had acted for the Company in a class claim by employees who were dismissed for their conduct during a picket. The Industrial Court had determined important issues of law concerning what constituted riotious rowdy behaviour, the requirement of a trade dispute as a pre-condition to picket, the Company’s rights over its premises which negated the Union’s capacity to raise a trade dispute in relation thereto as well and related matters.
• We had obtained an interim stay and quashed Awards concerning the collective agreement between the Company and the Union, wherein the Industrial Court had made awards in excess of the rate of inflation and exceeded the boundaries of a trade dispute. We had also established that the Industrial Court had failed to differentiate between the different heads of wage claims.