Celine & Oommen

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the statutory restrictions on appeals against interlocutory orders under section 68 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and the interaction of the ex parte receiver-appointment regime with the injunction provisions of the Rules of Court 2012.

Celine & Oommen appears in the corpus as counsel in corporate and civil-procedure litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan).

One matter concerned the appointment of receivers and managers. Acting for the defendant in litigation involving Zung Zang Holdings Sdn Bhd and related entities, the firm appeared where the court examined whether a receiver and manager could be appointed ex parte under Order 30 of the Rules of Court 2012, whether the requirement in section 376(1) of the Companies Act 2016 to give notice to the company precluded an ex parte appointment, whether an ex parte order was subject to the temporal limitations in Order 29, and how Order 30 relates to Order 29, invoking the principle generalia specialibus non derogant.

A significant procedural matter concerns the competency of an appeal. Acting for the appellant in a dispute involving a strata management corporation, the firm appeared where the court considered the statutory bar against appeals in section 68(1)(e), (f) and (g) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, and whether the dismissal of a summary-judgment application, or an application that in substance amounted to a striking-out, was appealable, applying substance over form and the legislative intention to restrict appellate review of certain interlocutory orders.

The firm also appeared in a matter, acting for the defendant, in which the court considered whether the plaintiff's action was time-barred under section 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1953 and whether it was founded on an illegal act so as to be barred by the maxims ex dolo malo non oritur actio and ex turpi causa non oritur actio. The firm's record is a corporate-and-procedural litigation practice engaging the appointment of receivers, the limits of appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders, and the defences of limitation and illegality.