Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan

On the court record

Senior appellate practice in judicial review, defamation and general civil litigation across the Court of Appeal and Federal Court.

Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan appears across the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan), the Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) and the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi), and the reported decisions describe a senior litigation practice spanning public law and general civil disputes. Judicial review ("semakan kehakiman") is a recurring vehicle, and the matters engage its threshold and substantive questions — including the leave threshold and the reviewability of prosecutorial and administrative decision-making.

The civil side is broad. The reported work includes defamation, where questions of the plaintiff's standing and the applicable defences arise; medical negligence, including a matter turning on the effect of a settlement agreement; contract and company disputes; and interlocutory questions such as a discovery application. Appearing mostly as appellant but also as respondent, plaintiff and defendant, the practice is instructed at the appellate level in matters that turn on points of law and on the proper limits of decision-making power.

A common thread is the tension between individual rights and the exercise of public and institutional authority. In the judicial-review matters the argument is about whether a decision-maker acted within jurisdiction and fairly; in the defamation matters it is about the balance between reputation and the freedom to comment; and in the negligence and contract matters it is about the standard of conduct and the enforceability of agreements. The reported reasons repeatedly address the gateways — leave, standing, the availability of a remedy — that determine whether a claim proceeds.

The overall profile is that of senior counsel handling constitutional and administrative law alongside high-value civil litigation in the appellate courts. The matters turn on the interpretation of statute and the Constitution, the reviewability of official action, and the principles of defamation and negligence, rather than on primary fact-finding, marking a practice defined by questions of law and the limits of power.