Lim Wei Jiet

On the court record

Lim Wei Jiet appears in the reported judgments as a constitutional and administrative-law practice with a supporting commercial docket, working across the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan). Its corpus is distinguished by significant public-law matters. A notable Federal Court matter concerns the constitutionality of section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, engaging Articles 4(1) and 4(2) on the supremacy of the Constitution and Article 10(1)(a) on freedom of speech and expression, the permissible restrictions under Article 10(2)(a), the vagueness of the words "offensive" and "annoy", and the doctrines of the presumption of constitutionality and reading down. It also appears in a Federal Court matter engaging the right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. The firm's administrative-law work includes leave to commence judicial review and whether the threshold for leave was satisfied, and whether an application was filed within time under Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. Its commercial and company work includes summary judgment under Order 14 in a banking claim, minority oppression under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016 in a family-owned or quasi-partnership company, and a dispute over whether shares were held on trust and whether that trust was breached. Acting for defendants, interveners, applicants and appellants across these matters, the firm presents as a public-law practice whose corpus centres on freedom of expression, assembly and the supremacy of the Constitution — questions argued at the Federal Court — complemented by company-oppression and civil-procedure work. The challenge to the communications-offence provision is a matter of real public significance, engaging the tension between the State's interest in regulating online communication and the citizen's constitutional right to speak, and the techniques — reading down, the presumption of constitutionality — by which a court reconciles the two. Its company and trust work, by contrast, shows the same firm applying close attention to the rights of minority shareholders and beneficiaries in the private commercial sphere.