Fahri, Azzat & Co.

On the court record

Fahri, Azzat & Co. appears in the reported judgments as a civil, commercial and public-law litigation practice, working across the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan). Contract and civil procedure are recurring themes, including a dispute over fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and the elements a claimant must establish, in litigation involving a technology-services company and an equipment supplier, and applications to strike out a claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. Its company-law work includes the ex parte appointment of receivers and managers and the registration of the transmission of shares under section 109 of the Companies Act, and it appears in arbitration, including an application to stay court proceedings under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 and questions of waiver and election. A distinctive strand of the firm's corpus is administrative and constitutional law, including a judicial review challenging the validity of a fatwa, argued at the Federal Court in a matter involving a civil-society organisation and a State Islamic religious council, and a dispute over the correct approach — remedy-based or subject-matter — to a challenge involving the registrar of converts. It has also appeared in a matter raising an allegation of a real danger of bias in the court below. The counterparties in the corpus include corporate, statutory and religious-administrative bodies. Acting for defendants, plaintiffs, appellants and applicants across these matters, the firm presents as a versatile litigator whose corpus joins contract, company and arbitration disputes to significant administrative and constitutional questions — the validity of a fatwa, the approach to public-law challenges — argued up to the highest courts, rather than resting on a single commercial specialism. The fatwa judicial review is a particularly striking matter, since it required the court to consider the extent to which a religious edict is amenable to challenge in the civil courts and the standing of those affected by it. Its arbitration and receivership work, by contrast, shows the same firm engaged in the ordinary machinery of commercial dispute resolution, so that the corpus spans both the constitutional frontier and the routine enforcement of private rights.