Vazeer Akbar Majid & Co.

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the demanding test for impeaching a consent order for fraud, requiring conscious and deliberate dishonesty, and the interplay of representative capacity, champerty and maintenance in security-for-costs applications.

Vazeer Akbar Majid & Co. appears in the corpus as counsel in civil-procedure and fraud litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), with a recurring focus on the impeachment of consent orders.

Several connected matters involving Puncak Kenangan (M) Sdn Bhd concern the setting aside of a consent order on the ground of fraud. Acting for the defendant, the firm appeared where the court examined whether a consent order had been procured by the conscious and deliberate concealment of material facts, whether the test for fraud requires proof of conscious and deliberate dishonesty rather than mere constructive fraud or unconscionability, whether the concealed facts had to be material in the sense that their disclosure would have fundamentally altered how the court decided the matter, and whether an applicant who personally approved and benefited from the impugned transactions could later conceal that involvement and challenge those same transactions. The proceedings engaged the principle that fraud unravels everything and the question whether a consent order entered bilaterally between an applicant and a statutory body, without the participation of affected parties, could stand.

The firm also appeared in related interlocutory work, including an application to strike out an amended defence and counterclaim under Order 18 rule 19 and to stay proceedings pending the disposal of related appeals, and a security-for-costs application under Order 23. In the security-for-costs matter, acting for the plaintiff suing as an executor, the firm appeared where the court considered whether a plaintiff suing in a representative capacity was exempt from providing security, whether a non-party who contributed to the plaintiff's costs in return for a share of any recovery gave rise to champerty and maintenance, and whether the quantum of security should be reduced to avoid stifling the litigation. The firm's record is a civil-procedure practice concentrated on the integrity and finality of judgments.