Clarence Edwin Law Offices
Contact Information
About Clarence Edwin Law Offices
Clarence Edwin Law Offices appears in 4 reported Malaysia judgments (2024–2025). These were heard before MYHC (4).
On the court record
The firm's record shows how the summary-judgment procedure under Order 14 and the law of guarantees operate in Malaysian banking litigation, and how land and joint-venture disputes are argued in Bahasa Malaysia before the High Court.
Clarence Edwin Law Offices appears in the corpus as counsel in land, contract and banking litigation, much of it argued in Bahasa Malaysia before the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi).
Several of the firm's matters concern land and joint-venture disputes. Acting as counsel for a third party in connected litigation involving Tokoh Agro Sdn Bhd, the firm appeared where the court dealt with, in the judgment's own words, undang-undang tanah - pencerobohan tanah (land law - trespass to land), a perjanjian usahasama (joint-venture agreement) together with a Business Exit Agreement and a Consultancy Agreement, and allegations of salah nyata dan penipuan (misrepresentation and fraud) and konflik kepentingan (conflict of interest). The proceedings also raised lucut kelayakan peguamcara (disqualification of solicitors), an extension of time to file a defence and a penghakiman ingkar pembelaan (judgment in default of defence).
In banking work the firm acted for the plaintiff where RHB Bank Berhad sought summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, the judgment recording the principle that apabila semua syarat bagi penghakiman terus telah dipenuhi, maka beban akan berpindah kepada defendan (once all the conditions for summary judgment are satisfied, the burden shifts to the defendant), together with the treatment of a kontrak jaminan (contract of guarantee) and whether a written admission by an authorised bank officer is conclusive evidence of indebtedness.
The firm also appeared for plaintiffs in a contractual dispute seeking specific performance of obligations established through an exchange of letters in a sale-and-purchase context, engaging the machinery of Order 42 and Order 45 of the Rules of Court for judgments requiring an act to be done within a fixed time. The firm's record is a property-and-banking litigation practice conducted fluently across both languages of the Malaysian courts, moving between the recovery of secured debt for a lender, the resolution of joint-venture and land-development disputes, and the enforcement of contractual promises by specific performance. It is the kind of transactional-litigation work in which the underlying documents, whether a guarantee, a development agreement or an exchange of letters, are read closely against the procedural machinery of the Rules of Court 2012.
How many cases has Clarence Edwin Law Offices been involved in?
Clarence Edwin Law Offices appears in 4 reported Malaysia judgments (2024–2025).
Which courts does Clarence Edwin Law Offices appear in?
Clarence Edwin Law Offices appears before MYHC (4).
What areas does Clarence Edwin Law Offices cover in the reported cases?
The firm appears in land and joint-venture disputes, banking claims for summary judgment on guarantees, and contractual specific-performance litigation, much of it argued in Bahasa Malaysia before the High Court.
What did the firm's banking matter concern?
Acting for RHB Bank Berhad, the firm appeared on an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, where the court applied the principle that once the conditions for summary judgment are met the burden shifts to the defendant, and examined a contract of guarantee.
What land-related issues arose in the firm's work?
The matters engaged trespass to land, a joint-venture agreement with associated Business Exit and Consultancy Agreements, allegations of misrepresentation and fraud, the disqualification of solicitors, and a judgment in default of defence.