Hasnan Hamzah

On the court record

Hasnan Hamzah is a Malaysian firm whose reported matters before the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) combine criminal defence with construction-arbitration and housing-development litigation. On the criminal side the firm has appeared in a drug-trafficking prosecution that ended in acquittal at the close of the prosecution case, where one accused had led the raiding team to the premises and was also the tenant, while the second and third accused were merely present; the court held that mens rea possession had not been proven and that the presumption of trafficking could not be invoked. That outcome illustrates the recurring criminal battleground over proof of possession and knowledge where premises are shared and access is not exclusive.

The firm's civil work is weighted toward construction and property. It has appeared on both sides of an application to set aside a construction-related arbitral award under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005, alleging a breach of natural justice in that the arbitrator was said to have failed to consider material submissions, and raising how expert-witness evidence should be treated where it conflicts with contemporaneous documents. It has also litigated a housing and liquidated-damages dispute over whether the plaintiffs had used the correct mode of proceedings to challenge an extension of time granted to a developer, and whether their claim was confined to liquidated ascertained damages or extended to challenging the amended completion arrangements. In the housing matter the court also considered whether the plaintiffs' grievance was confined to liquidated ascertained damages or reached the developer's amended completion arrangements, a question of the proper scope of the claim. The reported profile is that of a practice that pairs criminal defence, with a demonstrated willingness to test the prosecution's proof to the point of acquittal, with construction-arbitration and housing-development litigation in which the correct procedural vehicle and the integrity of the arbitral process are often decisive.