Hii Yii Ann v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of The Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2018] 7 MLJ 393
AJP had acted in a high profile case involving a Malaysian timber tycoon and the Government of Australia for a claim of RM 160 million in taxes.

• “Malaysian timber tycoon in RM160mil Australian tax quandary” – The Star


• “Malaysian timber tycoon sues Australian government in tax dispute” – The Star

Ahmad Noor Majid v TMR Urusharta (M) Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 LNS 2253
AJP had successfully contended that the Claimant’s employment contract is a genuine fixed term contract thus negating the issue of unfair dismissal and reinstatement.

Ala Mansor v TMR Urusharta (M) Sdn Bhd [2018] 2 LNS 1708
AJP’s success in Ahmad Noor Majid v TMR Urusharta (M) Sdn Bhd had benefited our client in other cases of alleged unfair dismissal as it was in this instance where the Claimant had decided and proposed for the matter to be settled out of court.

Ganesan Muthukaruppan v Central Distribution & Agency Sdn Bhd [2013] 2 LNS 0429
AJP had successfully proven that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed.

• Ibrahim Mohd Taufek v Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad [2019] MLJU 2108

• Jeffrey Foo Kwan Pheng v Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad [2019] 2 LNS 2322

• Rajan Suppiah v Kumpulan Hartanah Selangor Berhad [2019] 2 LNS 2323

AJP had simultaneously acted for 3 individuals that were unfairly dismissed the same company, successfully proving the claims.

• Chan Kwai Chun v Lembaga Kelayakan (Didirikan di bawah Seksyen 4 Akta Profesyen Undang-Undang 1976) [2002] 3 AMR 2537
A landmark case brought by students who had sat and passed the Malaysian Certificate in Legal Practice examinations (CLP) challenging the decision of the Qualifying Board to nullify the results of the candidates who sat for the CLP in 2002. Dato Alvin John acting as co-counsel with Tun Zaki Azmi (who later was appointed as Chief Justice of Malaysia), had successfully obtained judgement that it is the Board’s discretionary right to do so.

• Fairise Odyssey (M) Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2019] 6 MLJ 281

AJP had acted in a case involving the construction of high voltage pylons disputed to be built near a residential area

A Federal Court landmark case on complex statutory interpretation for state approval decided in favor of Tenaga Nasional Berhad.

• “Cheras residents arrested after ‘human shield against TNB pylon” – Malaysiakini


• “Taman Cheras Hartamas residents wants stop-order for high-voltage cable project” – theSundaily


• Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Ichi-Ban Plastic (M) Sdn Bhd and other appeals [2018] 3 MLJ 141
Acted as counsel in a Federal Court landmark case on electricity theft involving complex interpretation of the law affecting all subsequent cases decided in favour of Tenaga Nasional Bhd.

• Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Claybricks & Tiles Sdn Bhd [2013] 3 MLJ 279
A successful claim for electricity theft up involving a factory up to the Court of Appeal despite the factory disputing that Tenaga Nasional Bhd had failed to call a key witness.

• Sumbang Projeks Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2014] 4 CLJ 323
A successful claim for electricity theft involving a factory.

• KCSB Konsortium Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd & Anor [2015] 11 MLJ 69
AJP had acted as lead counsel involving alleged trespass of electricity pylons erected by the National Electricity Board, the predecessor of Tenaga Nasional Berhad.

A high profile defamation suit brought against the main opposition party by a prominent and senior politician in Malaysia.

• “ Friday hearing for appeal to stop ‘defamation’” – The Star

• “Lawyer: Idris gave sufficient evidence” – The Star

• Dato’ Idris bin Jusoh v Dato’ Seri Tuan Guru Hj Abdul Hadi bin Awang & Ors [2005] 3 MLJ 344

• Tenaga Nasional Berhad v GH Gong Holdings Sdn Bhd & 3 Ors [2016] 4 AMR 66
A dispute involving Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s statutory right in claiming land for public purposes and rightful ownership of land.

• Usra Tampi (M) Sdn Bhd v MBf Property Trust Management Bhd [2003] 3 MLJ 385
A contractual dispute involving the sale and purchase of a piece of land worth RM 22 million

• Khoo Cheng & Ors v Gan Hong Yock & Ors & Another Appeals [2005] 2 CLJ 85
A claim involving the sale of inheritance property and procedural law on probate and administration.

• Judicial Review against Pahang, Perak and Melaka

• Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Pendaftar Tanah & Galian Melaka; Kerajaan Negeri Melaka (2019)

• Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Pendaftar Tanah & Galian Pahang; Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Bentong; Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri Pahang; Kerajaan Negeri Pahang (2019)

• Lekir Bulk TerminalSdn Bhd v Majlis Pengurusan Pesisir Pantai Perak; Pengarah Majlis Pengurusan Pesisir Pantai Perak; Kerajaan Negeri Perak; Majlis Mesyuarat Kerajaan Perak Darul Ridzuan; Perbadanan Kemajuan Negeri Perak.(2017)
AJP had acted as counsel for Tenaga Nasional Bhd in numerous judicial reviews against various states regarding complex land law intertwined with state law and federal law

• “TNB’s indirect unit withdraws judicial review against Perak State govt and agencies”

• Tenaga National Berhad, MOCCIS Trading Sdn Bhd and MCAT Gen Sdn Bhd
AJP had advised amongst others on a RM 1 billion restructuring exercise in respect of a power plant in Kulim High Tech Industrial Park and a scheme of compromise and restructuring involving debts above RM 1 billion involving 17 creditor banks and financial institutions.

• Malaysia Transformer Manufacturing Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Abdullah Basir
AJP had acted as counsel for Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s subsidiary against a former director involving matters such as breach of fiduciary duty.

• Malayan Banking Bhd v Sepakat Computer Consultant Sdn Bhd & Ors (Intercontinenta lNominees Sdn Bhd & Anor, third party) [2012] 8 MLJ 660
A claim involving the non-performance of a sale and purchase of 3,250,000 shares.

• Tenaga Nasional Berhad v Manfield Development Sdn Bhd & Anor [2011] 2 AMR 826
A claim involving the non-performance of a sale and purchase of shares valued at RM 332 million

• Mayflower Acme Tours Sdn Bhd v Ngiam Foon and another suit [2012] 9 MLJ 42
A claim involving breach of fiduciary duty involving ex-employees joining the company’s competitor

• Seremban Engineering Bhd v Nandakumar a/l Perumal (trading under the name and style of New Trax Resources) [2016] 9 MLJ 656
A dispute involving the procedural law in winding up a company due to monies owed to an alleged creditor

• Tan Ah Chio & Ors v Lua Kim Soon & Ors [2015] 1 MLJ 334
A dispute involving the total purchase price of shares up to RM 8 million.

• Poke Food (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v Fooditive Holdings Sdn Bhd & Ors [2020] MLJU 2048
AJP had acted for a well-known pioneering Food & Beverage company involving breach of fiduciary duty and intellectual property law.

• TNB Engineering Corporation Sdn Bhd
AJP had provided legal advice to Tenaga Nasional Berhad’s subsidiary on the arge Scale Solar Photovoltaic (LSSPV) project worth RM 240 million.

• Tenaga Nasional Bhd v ZCM Resources Sdn Bhd [2018] 11 MLJ 309
AJP had successfully acted for Tenaga Nasional Bhd in a dispute for breach of contract involving a metal mining premise prematurely halting the supply of electricity.

• Cergas Murni Sdn Bhd
AJP had acted as counsels for the main Contractor in a high profile case involving the collapse of the 2nd Penang Bridge inter alia to advise, handle and represent the client in respect of construction and engineering issues of law.

• Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Tebrau Bay Constructions Sdn Bhd & Anor
AJP is currently acting for Tenaga Nasional Bhd in an international claim, among others, for trespass and negligence resulting in damages amounting to 21 million SGD or RM 64 million.

• Syarikat Sidhu Adek Beradek Sdn. Bhd v Puncak Niaga (M) Sdn Bhd And Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn. Bhd
A novel case involving road user’s liability and duty of care to the owners/ concessioners of a water catchment of water treatment area involving public interest.

• Tenaga Nasional Berhad v MMC Gamuda Joint Venture Sdn. Bhd
A case involving Malaysia’s largest electricity supplier and one of the largest Malaysian infrastructure company’s subsidiary for a negligence claim.