Ranjit Singh & Yeoh

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the interlocutory-injunction test in shareholder disputes and the constitutional guarantee of adequate compensation under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution in the context of wayleave compensation under the Electricity Supply Act 1990.

Ranjit Singh & Yeoh appears in the corpus as counsel in company-law, commercial and public-compensation litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan).

In corporate work the firm acted for the defendant in a share-sale dispute where a minority shareholder sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the convening of an extraordinary general meeting pending trial, and the court considered whether there were serious issues to be tried, whether damages were an adequate remedy, the balance of convenience and whether irreparable harm had been shown, dismissing the application.

The firm also appeared in an appeal involving Langkawi Yacht Club Bhd, where the court examined the distinction between the legal and evidential burdens of proof, the reversal of the burden, and the treatment of circumstantial and expert evidence, in a maritime context concerning bunkering operations, fuel segregation and the absence of contemporaneous records, together with the principles governing appellate interference with findings that are plainly wrong.

A further matter, in an appeal involving Lambang Kelana Sdn Bhd and Tenaga Nasional Berhad, engaged late-payment interest under the Electricity Supply Act 1990 for delayed wayleave compensation, and a landowner's right to adequate compensation under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution, bringing a constitutional dimension to a utility dispute. The firm also acted for the defendant in a claim for an introducer's fee arising from a sale of land, turning on the evidentiary burden and a purported mandate letter. The firm's record is a commercial-litigation practice engaging shareholder disputes, evidential burdens and the constitutional guarantee of adequate compensation for the compulsory use of land. The breadth of the firm's matters, which range from the internal governance of companies to the maritime evidence of bunkering operations and the constitutional protection of a landowner against an under-compensated wayleave, points to a chambers comfortable with the technical evidential terrain of commercial disputes and willing to press a constitutional argument where a statutory compensation scheme is said to fall short of what Article 13(2) requires.