Benjamin Poh Law Office
Contact Information
About Benjamin Poh Law Office
Benjamin Poh Law Office appears in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025–2026). These were heard before MYHC (3).
On the court record
The firm's record illustrates the American Cyanamid framework for interlocutory injunctions, including the caution against granting relief that would pre-empt the trial, and the effect of section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966 on claims against office-holders of a registered society.
Benjamin Poh Law Office appears in the corpus as counsel in commercial litigation, with a recurring focus on interlocutory injunctions, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.
One matter concerned a partnership dispute. Acting for the defendant, the firm appeared where an interlocutory injunction was sought under Order 29 rules 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 in a dispute over the operational management, financial administration and trademark rights of a limited liability partnership, and the court examined whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience, and, importantly, whether the interlocutory relief sought so substantially overlapped with the final relief pleaded that granting it would effectively determine the parties' substantive rights before trial, engaging the American Cyanamid principles, sections 50, 51 and 53 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 and the need for judicial restraint in contested commercial disputes.
In a related matter, argued in Malay, the firm acted for the plaintiff on an application for an interim injunction under Order 29 rule 1(2) concerning a dispute over the status of a tenancy, where the court, applying Tay Bok Choon v Tahansan Sdn Bhd and Keet Gerald Francis Noel, considered whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether the material factual disputes were unsuitable for determination on affidavit alone, and whether the financial loss claimed could be adequately compensated in damages, concluding that an injunction was not warranted.
The firm also appeared in a strike-out matter, acting for the plaintiff, where the court affirmed a Sessions Court order striking out a claim against a defendant who had acted not personally but as chairman of a registered society, applying the doctrine of privity of contract and section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966. The firm's record is a commercial-litigation practice concentrated on interlocutory injunctions and the threshold questions they raise.
How many cases has Benjamin Poh Law Office been involved in?
Benjamin Poh Law Office appears in 3 reported Malaysia judgments (2025–2026).
Which courts does Benjamin Poh Law Office appear in?
Benjamin Poh Law Office appears before MYHC (3).
What is Benjamin Poh Law Office known for in the reported corpus?
The firm has a recurring focus on interlocutory injunctions in commercial litigation, including partnership and tenancy disputes, alongside strike-out work, argued in the High Court in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.
What injunction issue arose in the firm's partnership dispute?
The court examined whether an interlocutory injunction over the management and trademark rights of a limited liability partnership so substantially overlapped with the final relief pleaded that it would determine the substantive rights before trial, applying the American Cyanamid principles and the Specific Relief Act 1950.
What did the firm's strike-out matter decide?
The court affirmed the striking out of a claim against a defendant who had acted as chairman of a registered society rather than personally, applying the doctrine of privity of contract and section 9(c) of the Societies Act 1966.