Sanjay is a Partner in CLO’s Dispute Resolution & Litigation Practice Group with a career spanning 30 years in construction and energy-related disputes, and experience in more than 100 arbitrations and court-related matters.
Sanjay was called to the Malaysian Bar in 1995. He regularly appears in the Malaysian Courts and in both domestic and international arbitrations.
Sanjay has been recognised in Chambers and Partners and various other ranking publications as one of the leading construction lawyers in Malaysia. Apart from his construction law practice, Sanjay also has significant and wide-ranging experience in commercial and civil disputes.
He is particularly interested in the technical areas arising from construction and energy related disputes. In recent time, he has been specifically engaged to cross-examine expert witnesses in court and in arbitration. He has also been involved in several landmark decisions in relation to construction and energy related disputes.
In addition to his construction and energy disputes practice, Sanjay also has a very active commercial practice and he has acted in numerous insurance, land, shareholder, and banking related disputes.
EXPERIENCE
- Acted for a construction company in the Federal Court case of Jack-In Pile (M) Sdn Bhd v Bauer (M) Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2020] 1 MLJ 174, concerning the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA), successfully arguing that earlier judicial decisions holding that CIPAA had retrospective application were incorrect. It was contended that CIPAA applied only prospectively, and the court agreed, affirming that the legislation did not govern disputes arising from contracts executed before it came into operation.
- Acted for an engineering and construction company in resisting an application to set aside an arbitration award, successfully maintaining the validity of the award before the High Court. The matter addressed the applicable test for pursuing an appeal pursuant to Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005, with the court affirming the threshold and scope of intervention permitted under the provision.
- Acted for a mechanical and engineering works contractor in a successful challenge of an arbitration award pursuant to Section 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005. The High Court allowed the challenge and revised the quantum of the award, increasing it from RM 2 million to RM 42 million.
- Acted as part of the team that introduced the concept of unconscionable conduct as a basis for obtaining an injunction to restrain the payment of monies guaranteed under a performance bond. In Kejuruteraan Bintai Kindenko Sdn Bhd v Nam Fatt Construction Sdn Bhd [2011] 7 CLJ 442, the Court of Appeal accepted unconscionable conduct as a valid ground for the granting of an injunction in relation to a demand on a performance bond.
- Subsequently acted for a construction company in Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Hundred Vision Construction Sdn Bhd [2015] 1 LNS 129, successfully obtaining an injunction on the basis that a demand on a performance bond was unconscionable.
