Hanif Hassan & Co.

On the court record

The firm's record spans the specialist statutory regimes of the Insolvency Act 1967 and the National Land Code, showing how service defects affect bankruptcy proceedings and how a claim to matrimonial property can support a caveatable interest.

Hanif Hassan & Co. appears in the corpus as counsel across insolvency, civil-procedure, criminal and land litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.

In insolvency the firm acted for the respondent in an appeal concerning a bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition, where the court considered whether an incorrect substituted-service date was a mere typographical error or a substantive defect, whether an amendment to the petition was permissible under sections 93(3) and 131 of the Insolvency Act 1967, and the propriety of affidavits filed out of time without leave, ultimately affirming the order that set aside the bankruptcy notice and creditor's petition.

The firm also appeared in civil-procedure work, including an application under Order 20 rule 11 and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 engaging the doctrine of res judicata and an amended judgment, and, on the criminal side, in an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning whether a sentence of whipping under section 39B of the dangerous-drugs legislation could be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, and the court's power and discretion in sentencing.

In land work the firm acted for the defendant in a private-caveat dispute, where the judgment records that a plaintiff sought to remove a kaveat persendirian (private caveat) to enable a sale, met by a claim to harta sepencarian semasa poligami (matrimonial property acquired during a polygamous marriage), raising whether the defendant had a caveatable interest and a meritorious question fit for trial under sections 323 and 327 of the National Land Code. The firm's record is a broad general-litigation practice, moving comfortably between the specialist statutory regimes of insolvency, land and criminal sentencing. A recurring thread is the close attention paid to procedural regularity, whether a service defect vitiates a bankruptcy notice, whether an amended judgment offends res judicata, or whether a caveat is supported by a genuine interest, so that the firm's advocacy frequently turns on the formal requirements of the governing statute as much as on the substantive rights in dispute.