G.K. Sritharan

On the court record

G.K. Sritharan appears in the reported corpus as a broad litigator, with reported matters spanning criminal justice, contract, family law and civil procedure across the High Court and Court of Appeal. On the criminal side he was engaged in a leave application for judicial review concerning properties seized by police under section 32(1)(c) of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, where the applicant had not submitted a claim within the stipulated time and the question was whether the low threshold for leave was met, and in a Court of Appeal appeal against a conviction and four-year sentence under section 26C of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act, where the complaint was that the appellant had been denied the opportunity to make submissions on the admissibility of an investigation statement.

His civil and commercial work is equally present. He was engaged in a contract dispute over wrongful termination that raised the distinction between ex facie and non-ex facie illegality where illegality had not been pleaded, and in a guaman sivil (civil suit) argued on a judgment in Bahasa Malaysia, where the defendant applied to strike out under Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012) on the ground that the action disclosed no reasonable cause of action, engaging the "plain and obvious" test. His reported matters also include a family-law claim for damages founded on an alleged adulterous relationship said to have caused the breakdown of a marriage, and a civil appeal over the sale and delivery of integrated circuits where fraud and a counterclaim over allegedly stolen goods were in issue. The reported matters mark him as counsel comfortable across criminal, contract, family and commercial litigation. This breadth across criminal, civil, family and commercial work, and across both leave applications and full appeals, marks him as a general litigator whose reported matters do not settle into a single specialism but move with the dispute in front of him.