Zulpadli & Edham

On the court record

Zulpadli & Edham appears in the reported judgments as a civil, land and commercial-litigation practice, working mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) with matters in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Land and enforcement work is a recurring strand: a charge and order for sale under the National Land Code, with an application for a stay of execution brought by the administrator of a deceased chargor's estate, in litigation involving Affin Bank Berhad, and procedural and jurisdictional questions such as whether a Senior Assistant Registrar had jurisdiction to make a particular order. Company-law matters feature as well, including an application for an interim stay of a winding up under section 492 of the Companies Act 2016 and the test to be applied, in a matter involving a leasing company and a bank. A distinct strand of its corpus is defamation, including an action over an online publication alleging a breach of the Movement Control Order, brought against a media corporation. The firm also appears in interlocutory injunction practice measured against the American Cyanamid requirements, in the assessment of damages under Order 37 of the Rules of Court 2012, in an application for leave to execute a judgment after the lapse of six years, and in proceedings under Order 89 against occupiers of land. The counterparties in the corpus include financial institutions such as Affin Bank Berhad and Orix Leasing Malaysia Berhad and a media company. Acting for plaintiffs, defendants, applicants and respondents across these matters, the firm presents as a general litigator whose corpus joins land and banking enforcement to company, defamation and injunction work and the assessment-of-damages and execution questions that follow a judgment. The defamation matter is a distinctive part of this profile, engaging the courts with the reach of the law of reputation into online publication and the defences available where the impugned statement concerns a matter of public controversy. The application for leave to execute a judgment after six years, and the Order 89 proceedings against occupiers of land, show a practice attentive to the later, enforcement stages of litigation, where a party seeks to realise the fruits of a judgment already obtained.