Bani Prakash & Co

On the court record

The firm's record pairs statutory child-protection criminal appeals with wage-dispute litigation, showing how the Labour Court's factual findings on consent to a salary deduction are reviewed on appeal to the High Court.

Bani Prakash & Co appears in the corpus as counsel across criminal appellate work and employment litigation, argued in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi).

On the criminal side the firm acted for an appellant in an appeal against conviction and sentence for sexual offences against a child. The charges were framed under the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017, cited in the judgment in its Malay short title: seksyen 14(a), seksyen 16, seksyen 26 and seksyen 27 Akta Kesalahan-Kesalahan Seksual Terhadap Kanak-Kanak 2017 (sections 14(a), 16, 26 and 27 of the Sexual Offences Against Children Act 2017). The appeal, argued before the Court of Appeal against the Public Prosecutor (Pendakwa Raya), concerned the sufficiency of proof and the correctness of the trial court's findings, with the appellant referred to here by role.

On the civil side the firm acted for an appellant in an employment dispute over a salary deduction. There an employee had claimed arrears of salary at the Labour Court, which found in the employee's favour, and the appeal to the High Court raised whether the Labour Court had erred in concluding that the employee did not consent to the deduction, whether there was consensus ad idem, and the application of section 7 of the Contracts Act 1950, together with the employee's entitlement to treat the contract of service as breached and to claim the balance of salary and termination benefits.

Although the firm's reported matters are comparatively few, they show a practice that combines serious criminal-appellate advocacy with employment and labour work, engaging both the ingredients and sentencing of statutory sexual offences and the contractual analysis of wage disputes before the Labour Court and on appeal. The pairing is a familiar shape for a Malaysian general-litigation firm, in which appellate criminal defence sits alongside the everyday contractual and employment disputes that make up much of a busy chambers' work, and in which fluency across English-language and Malay-language proceedings is essential.