Gan Partnership

On the court record

Gan Partnership appears in the reported judgments as a construction and commercial-litigation practice with a pronounced specialism in construction-payment adjudication, working mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with matters in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). The Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) is the defining thread of its corpus. Its work engages the setting aside and enforcement of adjudication decisions under sections 15, 16 and 28, and a question of considerable importance concerning the temporary finality conferred by section 13 of CIPAA — whether that temporary finality translates into the kind of interest or entitlement that can support a further remedy — argued at the Court of Appeal. The firm also appears in the Fortuna injunction context, where a party seeks to restrain a winding-up petition connected to a construction debt. Its contract work includes disputes founded on a total failure of consideration, and its company-law matters cover winding up and the grant of leave to a contributory to bring, continue and defend proceedings in the name of a company. Civil procedure and pre-action discovery — including discovery sought against a bank before the commencement of an action — round out the docket, alongside a dispute over introducer fees. The counterparties in the corpus include engineering and construction companies such as Zumatex Engineering Sdn. Bhd., Oceanergy Gases Sdn Bhd and China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. Acting for plaintiffs, respondents, petitioners and defendants, the firm presents as a construction-disputes specialist whose corpus is built around CIPAA adjudication and its interaction with winding up and the wider machinery of commercial litigation. The temporary-finality question is a particularly significant one, because it goes to the heart of the CIPAA scheme — an adjudicated sum is payable at once but remains open to later revision in arbitration or court, and the corpus records the firm arguing what consequences that provisional status can and cannot support. Its willingness to take such a point to the Court of Appeal marks a practice engaged with the developing doctrine of the statute rather than only its routine application.