A note on what we have argued.
Anonymised examples of our work, described within the bounds the Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 allow. We do not identify clients, compare ourselves to others, or claim success rates.

Acted as counsel for an EPC contractor in an AIAC arbitration arising from a power-plant project, on a claim exceeding RM 90 million for delay, variations and prolongation costs.
Represented a syndicate lender opposing a proposed scheme of arrangement and restraining order under ss.366 and 368 of the Companies Act 2016.
Recovered a certified progress payment for a mechanical subcontractor by statutory adjudication under CIPAA 2012, and enforced the decision as a judgment under s.28.
Acted for a minority shareholder in a s.346 oppression petition, obtaining a court-ordered buy-out at a valuation determined on the company’s audited accounts.
Obtained an ex parte Mareva injunction freezing assets within Malaysia pending trial of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and account of profits.
Appeared on a leave application to the Federal Court on a question of law concerning the construction and enforceability of an on-demand performance guarantee.
Represented an employer at the Industrial Court in a dismissal for misconduct, the dismissal upheld following a contested domestic inquiry.
Applied for leave to challenge a licensing authority’s refusal to renew a permit by way of judicial review under Order 53.
Resisted an application to set aside a domestic arbitral award under s.37 of the Arbitration Act 2005, and proceeded to enforce the award.
Advised and acted for a corporate claimant in a libel action arising from statements published online, on the defences of justification and fair comment.
Set aside a statutory demand served on a company where the underlying debt was genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.
Defended a main contractor in a PAM-form arbitration concerning liquidated ascertained damages, extensions of time and a disputed final account.
The above are illustrative and anonymised. Descriptions omit identifying detail to preserve client confidentiality and to comply with the Bar’s publicity rules. Past matters are not a representation as to the outcome of any future matter.