Sanjay Mohan

On the court record

Sanjay Mohan appears in the reported judgments as a construction, arbitration and commercial-litigation practice with an unusually strong appellate profile, working across the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) and the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan). Construction law is a central strand, including adjudication under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA) in a dispute between an engineering contractor and a petroleum-services company, and questions of arbitration — in particular whether a court-ordered reference to arbitration is different in character from a consensual submission to arbitrate. A distinctive line of the firm's work concerns contempt of court and the implied undertaking known as the Riddick principle, which restricts the use of documents obtained under compulsion in one proceeding for a collateral purpose, argued in appeals involving aviation-support and highland-resort companies. It also appears in applications to set aside injunctions and orders, invoking Order 29 rule 1, Order 32 rule 6 and Order 42 rule 13 of the Rules of Court 2012, in litigation involving a refining company and its Chinese engineering counterparties. Its contract work includes disputes over the terms of a subcontract passed down from a main contractor, and its civil-procedure matters extend to applications under Order 92 rule 4 invoking the court's inherent jurisdiction. The counterparties in the corpus are substantial industrial and construction parties, including Sinopec-group engineering companies, Petrofac Engineering Services (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and China Construction Yangtze River (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd. Acting for plaintiffs, appellants, defendants and respondents in roughly even measure, and with a docket weighted toward the appellate courts, the firm presents as a specialist in construction and arbitration disputes and in the contempt, set-aside and inherent-jurisdiction questions that surround high-value commercial litigation. The recurrence of these matters at the Court of Appeal and Federal Court indicates that the firm frequently argues questions of principle rather than routine first-instance recovery.