Xavier, Joachim

– FOUNDING PARTNER –

Advised and represented a global American company involved in a local infrastructure project with a local joint-venture partner, to make a legally required disclosure of corruption activities in Malaysia (by its local joint venture partner) under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009. The disclosure pertained to the suspected payment of bribes involving millions of Ringgit to certain officials locally and overseas. Given the complex network of bribe payments around the globe, the disclosure had to be timed precisely and coordinated with simultaneous disclosures in these other jurisdictions. It also involved complex dossier preparations that satisfied the disclosure laws of the various jurisdiction. Attention had to be paid to the tone and angle of the disclosure so as to avoid catastrophic negative consequences to the infrastructure project operations and the disclosing company’s reputation.

Member of a team of supervising solicitors engaged to supervise the enforcement of a High Court issued Anton Piller Order compelling the production of documentary evidence found in 6 separate target business premises. The raid was conducted simultaneously to preserve the element of surprise. The execution of the Anton Piller Order was successfully carried out despite some resistance by the defendants. Supervising Solicitors Reports were prepared and filed in the High Court. Based on this report, several defendants were cited for contempt of Court for failing to properly comply with the Anton Piller Order at the time it was executed at the business premise.

Represented a minor in the High Court and Court of Appeal seeking a declaration that he was a Malaysian citizen by operations of law. Mounted a constitutional law argument based on Article 14 and 15 of the Federal Constitution pertaining to citizenship rights founded on the just soli and jus sanguine principle. Alternative submissions were also made on the right to citizenship on grounds of statelessness. The case involved deep analysis of the concept of jus soli and jus sanguine in the context of Malaysia’s history dating back to independence. The litigant was eventually granted full citizenship by the Malaysian Government.

Acted for a trainee Government school teacher in a suit (against the Ministry of Education) following her termination from the job for becoming pregnant. The High Court in a landmark judgment held that the termination was a violation of Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution. The High Court awarded substantial damages for breach of her constitutional right. The decision was appealed by the Government of Malaysia to the highest court (Federal Court) on grounds that such a head of damages was not recognised under Malaysian law and that it amounted to unjust enrichment. Submissions were made for the recognition of such a head of damage in Malaysia. Reliance was placed on decisions from other Commonwealth jurisdiction that did recognise such a head of damage. The Federal Court in a landmark judgment delivered a decision recognising this head of damage under Malaysian law and assessed the quantum of damages.

Acted for large multinational corporation against parties infringing on the former’s intellectual property rights. Pre-action work included extensive gathering and organising of documentary and oral evidence of infringement occurring all over the country. Successfully obtained a nation-wide interlocutory injunction and subsequently a permanent injunction against the infringing party resulting in the shutting down of the infringing business. Handled numerous interlocutory applications including stay and setting aside applications. Enforced the injunction orders by halting the import of a large shipment of the infringing product at a Malaysian port by serving the injunction order on the Royal Malaysian Customs. Also, successfully obtained a committal order against the proprietor of the infringing business for deliberate violation of the injunction order. Personally, handled every aspect of the litigation from the High Court, the appeals in the Court of Appeal as well as at the apex court (Federal Court).

Successfully defended a company charged under the Food Act 1983 for allegedly manufacturing food products containing preservatives above the permitted level. Successfully raised a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the analysis conducted by the government chemist. Defence counsel sought and obtained an order (after stiff resistance by Prosecution) to have the food sample re-analysed by an independent private laboratory. The re-analysis showed that the preservative content was well within the permissible level. The Company was acquitted without its defence being called. Prosecution appealed but was withdrawn before it was heard by the High Court.