Low & Partners

On the court record

Low & Partners appears in the reported judgments as a civil and company-litigation practice, working mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with matters in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and appearing most often for defendants. Company law is a recurring theme, including oppression proceedings commenced by originating summons under section 346 of the Companies Act 2016, in which a shareholder sought declarations of oppression and consequential relief, and the court's assessment of the affidavit and documentary evidence before dismissing or granting the reliefs sought. Civil procedure is prominent, in particular the striking out of a claim under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012 on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or is an abuse of process, and the amendment of a defence long after the event. The firm also appears in moneylending litigation engaging the Moneylenders Act 1951 and restitution under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 in a matter involving a licensed moneylender, and in a claim for breach of a duty of care arising from an alleged assault and bullying of special-needs students, brought against a school and its principal. Several of its matters come on appeal from the Sessions Court, including a defamation action. The counterparties in the corpus include corporate parties, a licensed credit company and an educational institution. Acting predominantly for defendants, the firm presents as a general litigator whose corpus joins company-oppression and moneylending disputes to civil-procedure contests over striking out and amendment, together with duty-of-care and defamation claims, rather than resting on a single specialism. The moneylending matter is a distinctive strand, engaging the statutory controls on licensed lending and the restitutionary consequences under section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950 where an agreement is found unenforceable, so that a lender may recover on a different basis than the contract itself. The duty-of-care claim arising in a school setting shows the same practice applying negligence principles to the protection of vulnerable pupils, a socially significant field in which the standard of care owed by an institution is closely examined.