Vilasiny Gan & Co.

On the court record

Vilasiny Gan & Co. appears in the reported judgments as a construction, civil and intellectual-property litigation practice, working mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with matters in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Building and construction law is a recurring strand of its corpus, including construction-contract adjudication where a claimant sought to enforce an adjudicated sum. Civil procedure is prominent, including the mandatory procedural requirements for an originating summons and the striking out of a writ and statement of claim, and an appeal against a decision of the Senior Assistant Registrar staying a garnishee proceeding, in a matter in which several banks were named as garnishees. A distinct strand of the firm's corpus is trademark law, an area few practices of its size in the corpus touch, together with the cancellation of a registrar's caveat where the applicant had failed to comply with the prescribed procedure. Its contract work includes a dispute over whether a party had acknowledged receipt of the purchase price under a satisfaction-of-price clause. The firm also appears in criminal procedure, including a contention that a charge was defective measured against the requirements of sections 152 and 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The counterparties in the corpus include financial institutions — among them CIMB Bank Berhad, Public Bank Berhad, Malayan Banking Berhad, Hong Leong Bank Berhad, United Overseas Bank (Malaysia) Berhad and RHB Bank Berhad — and property and trading companies. Acting for plaintiffs, defendants, applicants and respondents across these matters, the firm presents as a litigator whose corpus joins construction and civil-procedure disputes to trademark and caveat matters and occasional criminal procedure, a broad profile in which its intellectual-property work is a distinguishing feature. The garnishee-stay matter is a good illustration of its enforcement practice, since a garnishee order attaches money owed to a judgment debtor by a third party such as a bank, and the question of whether that process should be stayed pending a related dispute directly affects a creditor's ability to realise its judgment.