Hasshahari & Partners

On the court record

Hasshahari & Partners is a Malaysian firm whose reported matters before the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) reach across civil procedure, company, criminal, employment and public-law fields. A distinctive matter concerns the recognition of foreign judgments: the firm litigated an application to register a Singapore judgment based on a gambling debt under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958, raising whether enforcement would be contrary to public policy in Malaysia and whether that objection amounted to an impermissible re-examination of the merits of the Singapore decision. Its civil and corporate work includes an interlocutory-injunction appeal testing locus standi and whether the appellants held any legal or beneficial interest in a company, and a joint-venture appeal in which the court held certain appellants bound by a personal guarantee and liable for the sums advanced.

On the criminal side the firm has appeared in a drug-trafficking appeal under section 39B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, questioning whether the police had prior knowledge or conducted a random inspection and whether the trial court's findings rested on a wrong inference, and in a forfeiture-of-property matter (pelucuthakan harta) concerning the burden of proof and the investigating officer's evidence. It has also litigated public-law and employment questions, including a judicial review seeking certiorari to quash a dismissal following a bind-over under section 173A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and whether a salary claim belonged in the civil courts or before the Labour Court under section 69 of the Employment Act, together with res judicata and issue-estoppel arguments over substituted service. In the forfeiture matter the firm tested the sufficiency of the investigating officer's evidence and the satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor before property could be forfeited, an illustration of the firm's attention to the evidential foundations of a coercive order. The reported profile is that of a broad litigation practice spanning cross-border enforcement, company and criminal work, and administrative and employment disputes.