Subramaniyan

On the court record

A contract- and tort-litigation practice with a recurring appellate role from the Sessions Court, engaging the construction of commercial documents, the elements of trespass, and the enforceability of indemnities.

Subramaniyan is recorded in the corpus in contract and tort litigation, appearing frequently on appeal from the Sessions Court to the High Court. In one High Court matter the firm acted for the defence in a claim arising from an event-management agreement, where the court had to construe a commercial contract — distinguishing a global budget from an itemised budget and identifying which expenses were reimbursable and which were professional fees — against a background of alleged repudiation, delay in payment, a counterclaim for the refund of an advance on a total failure of consideration, and allegations of professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. In a civil appeal from the Sessions Court the firm acted for the plaintiff in a trespass claim, where waste had been disposed of on the plaintiff's land: the court considered whether one defendant was liable for the acts of another, whether trespass is actionable per se without proof of damage, the concept of continuing trespass, and the availability of exemplary damages, ultimately dismissing the defendant's appeal and allowing the plaintiff's cross-appeal. A further High Court appeal, in which the firm acted for the appellant, concerned a claim for an indemnity, where the court stressed that it must construe a document as a whole rather than be bound by its label, found on the evidence — including WhatsApp messages — that the promise of an indemnity was clear and unequivocal, but held there was no law in Malaysia making fathers liable for the liabilities of their adult sons, so that the appeal was allowed in part. Across these matters the firm is recorded engaged in the interpretation of commercial documents and the elements of trespass and indemnity, with a recurring appellate role reviewing the fact-findings and legal conclusions of the Sessions Court. In the event-management matter the court also addressed a counterclaim for the refund of an advance on a total failure of consideration, and allegations of professional negligence measured against the required standard of reasonable skill and diligence.