Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh

On the judicial record

A High Court judge whose reported corpus centres on property, professional-liability and personal-status disputes, with strata, estate and defamation matters among the range.

Justice Ahmad Shahrir b. Mohd Salleh sits mainly in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), with some Court of Appeal work, and the reported decisions in this corpus are broad-ranging civil matters with a recurring interest in property, professional conduct and personal status. Professional-negligence claims against solicitors feature, including a claim that a solicitor breached the duty of care by failing to advise on the legal and regulatory risks of an unregulated collective investment scheme, and questions of conflict of interest. Property and land disputes are prominent — equitable occupation and statutory compensation under section 28(2) of the Civil Law Act 1956 in a dispute between a registered proprietor and long-term occupiers claiming under a family trust, trespass claims turning on the validity of a power of attorney, and the proprietary rights of purchasers in a winding-up context.

Strata and management-corporation disputes recur, including a challenge under Order 14A of the Rules of Court to differential maintenance charges said to be ultra vires the statutory authority of a management corporation. Personal-status and registration questions appear, such as an application for declarations concerning a person's identity and religious status in the records of the National Registration Department. Defamation claims arise from statements made in police reports, including one alleging that the plaintiff had fabricated false allegations against a third party.

The corpus also engages contract and estate matters — the recovery of rental and restoration costs under a lease of tank containers governed by foreign law and assigned under an asset-purchase agreement, and an application for the appointment of an administrator pendente lite, which the court refused. On the appellate side, contract questions arise such as whether the suspension of services for non-payment amounted to a repudiatory breach. The judgments portray a trial judge comfortable across property, professional-liability, strata and status disputes.