M Manoharan

On the court record

M Manoharan appears in the reported corpus as a broad litigator, with tort, company, civil procedure and criminal matters among the reported appearances. On the tort side he was engaged in a fatal-accident claim arising from the death of a university student in a dormitory, allegedly from electrocution by a defective wall lamp, where the court weighed duty of care, breach, causation and the independent technical findings of the Energy Commission as statutory regulator, together with alleged breaches of statutory duty under the electricity legislation. His company and civil-procedure work includes an application by a contributory for leave to continue appellate proceedings on behalf of a company in compulsory winding up where the Official Receiver had declined consent, and an application for security for costs under Order 23 of the Rules of Court 2012 against a foreign plaintiff with assets in Malaysia.

His reported matters also reach striking out, corruption and land fraud. In a Court of Appeal matter he was engaged where the High Court had allowed a striking-out application under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, and in a further Court of Appeal appeal argued on a judgment in Bahasa Malaysia he acted in a corruption matter under seksyen 16(a)(B) Akta Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia 2009 (section 16(a)(B) of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009), engaging the statutory presumption in section 50(1) and the evidence of an accomplice and agent provocateur under section 52. He also appeared in a land-fraud claim to recover a deceased's land said to have been dispossessed through a forged power of attorney used to transfer the land, with the solicitor who presented the transfer form among the defendants. The reported matters mark M Manoharan as a general litigator moving across tort, company, criminal and land work. The breadth of these reported matters — from a fatal accident to corporate insolvency to land fraud and a corruption appeal — marks a practice that follows the dispute in front of him rather than settling into any single field of law.