Norendra & Yap

On the court record

A commercial and civil-litigation practice engaging sale-of-goods claims, interlocutory default-judgment procedure and administrative-law review of a specialist tribunal, at first instance and on appeal.

Norendra & Yap is recorded in the corpus in commercial and civil litigation, including sale-of-goods, interlocutory procedure and judicial review of a tribunal. In one High Court matter the firm acted for the plaintiff in a claim over the sale and supply of gloves, where the pleaded case sought rescission and damages and raised negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, non-conformance with contractual specifications, and implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act 1957 — whether goods bought by description were of merchantable quality and fit for purpose — together with questions of privity, agency and the lifting of the corporate veil, and the admissibility of documents said to be covered by negotiation privilege. A second High Court matter, also for the plaintiff, was interlocutory: a defendant applied to set aside an order that had granted leave to enter penghakiman ingkar pembelaan (judgment in default of defence), and the application to set aside was dismissed. On the appellate side the firm appeared for the appellant in a Court of Appeal judicial review directed at the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (the Homebuyer Claims Tribunal), where the issue was whether the tribunal's award — concerning a developer's failure to observe a non-rectification clause and to repair defects within the defect-liability period — was tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety warranting its being quashed on supervisory review. Across these matters the firm is recorded moving between substantive commercial claims, the procedural mechanics that decide who may enter and set aside judgment, and administrative-law challenges to specialist tribunals, appearing at first instance in the High Court and on appeal in the Court of Appeal. The record reflects a practice comfortable with both the merits of a commercial dispute and the interlocutory and supervisory levers that shape its course. In the sale-of-goods claim the pleaded case also engaged whether negotiation privilege had been waived by conduct and the admissibility of documents under sections 73A(2) and 90A of the Evidence Act 1950.