Roshan

On the court record

The firm's record includes a Federal Court matter testing the boundaries of witness immunity, the finality of litigation and the availability of malicious prosecution and perjury-based fraud as torts in Malaysian law.

Roshan appears in the corpus as counsel in company-law, land and tort litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and reaching the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan).

In corporate work the firm acted for the defendant in a dispute involving Blue Valley Plantation Berhad over the transfer of shares, where the court examined whether the defendant had acquired the shares, whether a Form 32A was sufficient without registration, whether valid consideration had been given, and whether a consent order premised on the alleged shareholding could be set aside for mistake or fraud on the ground of a total failure of consideration, together with restitution and unjust enrichment.

The firm also appeared in land litigation, acting for the plaintiff in a full-trial application for the subdivision of land (pecah milik) under section 145 of the National Land Code, brought by originating summons, which the court allowed. In a Sessions Court appeal it acted for the respondent in a dispute over declarations that a contract for the sale of goods had been terminated and over an order for damages and the delivery of property.

The firm's most significant matter reached the Federal Court, where, acting for the respondent, it appeared on questions of some importance: whether witnesses enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability for evidence given in judicial proceedings, the application of the doctrine of the finality of litigation, whether the tort of malicious prosecution applies in civil proceedings in Malaysia, and whether fraud based on perjury constitutes a recognised and actionable tort. The firm's record is a varied litigation practice engaging shareholder disputes, land subdivision and questions at the frontier of the law of tort and the finality of judgments. That a single chambers should move from the everyday machinery of a subdivision application under the National Land Code to an apex-court argument about whether a witness may be sued for perjured evidence points to a practice that is at once grounded in routine land and corporate work and willing to litigate questions of principle that shape the boundaries of civil liability, and comfortable arguing in both languages of the courts.