Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012

LEGAL CAULDRON Jayadeep Hari & Jamil

Advocates and Solicitors

PETALING JAYA

Unit 612, 6th Floor, Menara Mutiara Majestic,

No. 15, Jalan Othman,

46000 PJ, Selangor. T: 03-7784 7255 F: 03-7781 7255

KOTA BHARU 1

2713, 1st Floor, Section 22, Batu 2, Jalan Kuala Krai,

15050 Kota Bharu,

Kelantan. T: 09-741 2050 F: 09-741 2051

KOTA BHARU 2

Tingkat 2, Lot 11, Bangunan Tabung Haji,

Kompleks Niaga, Jalan Dato Pati,

15000 Kota Bharu, Kelantan. T: 09-747 7782 F: 09-747 4733

Issue no. 2

of 2012

LE

GA

L C

AU

LD

RO

N Iss

ue N

o 2

of 2012

MELAKA

No.54-1, Jalan TU 2, Taman Tasik Utama,

75450 Ayer Keroh,

Melaka. T: 06-234 7330 F: 06-234 4800

In this issue:

Our offices:

No KDN: PP 15706/02/2013

(032198)

KUALA LUMPUR

Suite 2.03 (2nd Floor) Block A, No 45, Medan Setia Satu,

Plaza Damansara, Bukit Damansara,

50490 Kuala Lumpur. T: 03-2096 1478 | F: 03-2096 1480 www.jhj.com.my

Group Insurance Policy -

Sue the insurer? Think again.

Rear End Collision -

Is it always entirely your fault?

Company Directors -

Can members sue them?

360 Student Attachment

Programme - Student reviews

JHJ Family Day -

Flying Fox & Jungle Gym

JHJ & Great Eastern

collaboration on the CRC.

JHJ Charity Mission - Madagascar 3 Movie Day with Orphans

EDITORS:

Andrew Chee Adeline Chin

CONTRIBUTORS: Eunice H.S. Ong Barvina Punnusamy

Shobana Padmanathan

MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR: Welcome to the second edition of the Legal Cauldron for

the year 2012. It seemed not too long ago that the year

began but half a year has nevertheless gone by. We hope

the year has been as exciting, hectic and fun for you has it

has been for JHJ. And now, we bring you once more our

legal writings from our team of lawyers and as always, we

do our best to keep our clients abreast with the latest and

pertinent legal and social issues. We hope you enjoy reading

our newsletter as much as we enjoyed writing them.

In our last edition, we mentioned that our headquarters in

Bukit Damansara had expanded and with the expansion, we

also now have new colleagues (and friends) to add to the

JHJ family. We would like to introduce to you:

Siti Khadijah (Lawyer – CR Department)

Suthes (Lawyer – CR Department)

Manisah (Lawyer – Conveyancing Department)

Adeline (Manager – Knowledge Department)

Saravanan (Secretary – CR Department)

Didie (Secretary – Conveyancing Department)

Aisyah (Receptionist)

We are very glad to have such capable yet affable

personalities onboard and look forward, not just to work

together but to have fun together especially in our

upcoming office trip!

On that note, please visit our website (www.jhj.com.my)

and see our updated Nature of Practice and Industry

Experience, which has expanded since our last edition to

include various other new areas that we have now ventured

into. We have, among other areas, extended our scope of

services, such as into the mining industry. We would like to

thank our clients who have had the faith and confidence to

bring to us new matters in new areas that allowed us to

expand our knowledge. We are glad to say that we

managed, guided always by our We Care philosophy and

core values, to bring all matters in new areas to very

satisfactory conclusions.

Outside the office however, JHJ was invited by Great

Eastern Life Assurance to collaborate on a CRC Event

(Convention of the Rights of the Child) on 31st March this

year. We jumped at the opportunity and Barvina, who has

always been a passionate Human and Child Rights advocate,

spoke on behalf of JHJ to a large crowd of secondary school

students of their rights in this country. In addition to that,

Mr Jayananda Rao, long time friend of Jayadeep and Hari and

a criminal lawyer of 19 years, spoke also at the event and

informed the children of their rights in relation to the

Criminal Justice System. It was amazing that the children

were highly entertained, yet thoroughly informed, by his

explanation and personal accounts of juvenile cases he has

handled. Please see photos of the event on page 6.

And further to do with children, JHJ had a second event

relating to children. During our Annual Charity Event on

16th June, we brought orphaned children from Praise

Emmanuel Children‟s Home, Rumah Kebajikan Darul

Kifayah, and Persatuan Kebajikan Teratak Shifa to watch

Madagascar 3: Europe‟s Most Wanted at Cathay Cineplex

e@Curve (formerly Cineleisure Damansara). Perhaps with

the impending marriages of some of our JHJ Family

members, children are a subject currently close to home.

We all had a riot watching the movie. We have to say that

the children were very well-behaved and we are glad to

have spent time and brought some excitement to their

Saturday. Please see photos of the event on page 8.

It seems we have had a very family-oriented first half and

coincidentally, JHJ also had its Family Day in 7th March albeit

a physically-challenging one. The JHJ Family and their own

real family members and friends went to Skytrex Adventure

in Bukit Cahaya Seri Alam to undertake the “Big Thrill”

circuit involving tightropes, climbing rope ladders and flying

fox challenges. It was no mean feat but we all had our safety

harness and clips on at all times and had a good and

energetic outing. Please see photos of the event on page 4

And finally, our Attachment Students have successfully

finished our JHJ 360o Student Programme and are facing the

CLP exams soon. We bid them all the best and we‟re sure

they will do well. In fact, we have been very pleased with

their performance that we have offered them all positions

for pupillage upon successful completion of their exams. We

now look forward to a second batch of Attachment

Students which we expect to be even more successful given

that we have also learnt from our own experiences in this

Programme and have tweaked it further to help make the

Students‟ learning smoother and more effective. Anyone

interested in our Programme may email [email protected] to

apply.

Now without further ado, please enjoy the latest edition of

the Cauldron with our compliments.

EDITOR

Andrew Chee Knowledge Dept

[email protected]

Legal Cauldron 2 of 2012 | 2

http://www.jhj.com.my

mailto:[email protected]

When you are employed with a company, more

often than not, you will enjoy the benefit of insurance

hospitalisation coverage. This is where your

employment contract or employment handbook will say

something like this:-

“Hospitalisation benefits are available to you as an

employee through our group medical insurance.”

Alternatively, you could have taken a group

accident policy when you apply for membership of say a

Holiday Members Club or a Turf Club for that matter.

Then, something unfortunate happens, you

were admitted into a hospital and require a surgical

procedure to be done or you suffer a prolapsed disc

(touch wood), you make a claim against the insurance

company and your claim gets… rejected.

The usual drill takes place, you get angry and

you make a lot of noise, but to no avail. The claim

officers still refuse to process your claim. Then you get

free coffee-shop legal advice which prompts you to sue

the insurance company in Court.

You may have been told that you will win the

case, get your claim processed and get the money

insured. You may think that you have insurance

coverage, pursuant to your employment contract or

your membership card, there is absolutely no reason

that you should fail in your claim. Think again.

Now, let us put things in perspective. Say we

use the first example of your benefit as an employee of

enjoying hospitalisation benefits; you make a claim

against the insurance company for hospitalisation

expenses, which you had incurred for treating your

prolapsed disc condition.

What we should first realise is that although

the policy taken by your employer is for your benefit,

generally you are not the owner of the policy as you are

not named in the policy. You do not pay any form of

contributions to the insurance company, your employer

does. And generally, until and unless a statute is passed

to protect the third parties to a contract in Malaysia,

you will not be able to succeed in the suit against the

insurance company. This is what we lawyers like to call,

privity of contract, which is simply defined as you will

have no right to the contract, if you are not part of it.

This is unless the group accident policy names

specifically the beneficiaries, and that the beneficiaries

may on their own accord file a claim with the insurance

company.

However, if the group accident policy merely

has the owner of the policy being your employer, then

the law of privity will apply.

If I may cite an example in a reported case, in

Anuar bin Ismail v Tan Sri Tan Chin Tuan & Anor

[1992] 1 MLJ 155, a professional jockey was required

to contribute 2% of his riding fees and prize money to

the Malayan Racing Association Fund and part of this

money was used to pay for the group insurance policy.

He suffered injuries and was unable to return to

professional competitive horse riding on 4 December

1987 and made a claim against the insurer.

Now, as we have expected, the court dismissed

his claim against the insurer on the ground that he was

not a party to the contract. The court had stated that

the absolute owner of the policy was the association

and only the association could claim under it and no one

else.

But before you hit panic button and conclude

that you have no right to claim from the insurance

company of the sum you were insured on, you should

know that all is not lost. What this means is that your

employer being the owner of the policy and also

pursuant to your contract of employment, it is the duty

of your employer to make that claim with the insurers

and collect the sum insured on trust for you.

In the case of Bank Bumiputra Malaysia Bhd

v Mohamed Salleh [2000] 2 CLJ 13 the court held

as follows:-

“…under the ordinary principles that govern the law

of trusts, any employee would be able to lodge a

claim, as a beneficiary of the policy against MNI. This

would cause great difficulties to the insurer because it

will then be faced with a multitude of claims… the

person such as the respondent [the employee] cannot

claim anything under the policy from MNI directly.

However, the appellant [employer] is entitled to

receive any benefit due to the respondent. Once

received it will hold monies as trustee for the

respondent. This then is what a group insurance policy

is about.” [emphasis my own]


GROUP INSURANCE POLICY

- Sue the Insurer? Think Again.

By Eunice H.S. Ong

“...generally you are not the owner

of the of the policy...”

To translate that quote in simple terms, it

means that the right/duty to claim from the insurer lies

with your employer, who will collect/receive the money

on trust for you and make the necessary payment to

you.

So no, you cannot claim against the insurer for

a group accident/hospitalisation policy if you are not

specifically named in the policy and if it is not stated

that you have a right to make that claim, but you can

most certainly claim against your employer or whoever

the owner of the policy will be. And if your employer

does not take any action for the insured sum to be paid

to you, your cause of action will be against your

employer, pursuant to the employment contract that

you have signed with your employer. This means that

although you do not have a cause of action against the

insurance company, you do certainly have a cause of

action against your employer pursuant to the

employment contract.

So, what you do when you need to claim for

hospitalisation expenses is to notify your employer, and

leave the administration in their good hands.

By Eunice H.S. Ong

[email protected]


“Your cause of action will be against

your employer.”

Interesting Cases:

Sanmarkan a/l Ganapathy & Anor (as

administrators of the estate of

Saradhamani a/p Doraisamy Gopal, the

deceased) v Dato' Dr V Thuraisingham &

Ors [2012] 3 MLJ 817:

Doctors would be liable for negligence if there was

sufficient equipment, knowledge, skill and experience

to diagnose the ailment but yet failed to further

investigate matters.

Bank Muamalat Malaysia Bhd v Mahkamah

Perusahaan Malaysia & Anor [2011] 6 AMR

832:

An employee’s dismissal from his job for khalwat is

justified because it is a recognised gross misconduct

and the employer’s reputation is to be given priority.

EVENTS JHJ team conquers Skytrex on Family

The JHJ team went beyond office boundaries and ventured

into the terrains of Skytrex for some good old exercise,

fresh air and lush greenery in Bukit Cahaya, Shah Alam to

celebrate our annual Family Day. High spirits and the many

outdoor facilities available ensured some healthy

competition and teamwork amongst us. Flying Fox had our

hearts pumping, Hanging Bridge had our heads spinning;

but the picnic after made up for all the energy

consumption. It was a revitalising Family Day indeed! We

all went home drenched in sweat with a bucket load of

cheer.

REAR END COLLISION

- Is it always entirely your fault?

By Barvina Punnusamy

Imagine driving on the road while listening to your

favourite music, you are just following behind a vehicle

when suddenly the vehicle in front stops and you collide

with the vehicle. You are in shock, confused even. The

driver comes out, screams at you that it is your fault. But,

how could that be? Why should you be blamed for the

collision when it was the driver who suddenly stopped

without any signal or indication? However the driver insists

that you should be blamed since you had collided into the

rear end of the vehicle. People start surrounding your

vehicle and they also say that it is your fault as the driver

travelling behind. In order to avoid any arguments and

dispute with the other driver, you agree to pay for damages

just to be able to drive away from the scene of the collision.

But, is it really entirely your fault?

There seems to be an unwritten rule that if you

collide with a vehicle in front of you, it is always your fault

regardless of the circumstances leading to the collision.

Surely, this is wrong because there could be other

occasions that result in a rear end collision like when a

driver suddenly changes lane and encroaches into your lane.

The notion involving rear end collision comes from rule 22

of the Highway Code which stipulates that the following

driver should allow at least one car‟s length between his car

and the vehicle in front for every ten miles an hour of its

speed.

Although you may have collided with a vehicle

on the rear but it does not necessarily mean that you

are to be entirely blamed for the collision based on the

case of Leng Yang Sua & Anor v Ng Yen Ken &

Anor [1986] CLJ (Rep) 448 which held that rear

vehicle collisions should be decided on their own facts

since there has been no judicial consistency. The Court

in Abdullah Karim v Ahmad Abdullah & Anor

[1991] 2 CLJ (Rep) 238 decided that the driver in

front who had failed to keep a proper lookout before

he stopped the bus to pick up the would-be passenger

was found 25% liable for the collision. The driver

following behind was held 75% liable as he had failed to

carry out his duty to keep a safe distance while

following behind the bus.

This means that you may not be entirely at fault

for the collision as the other driver has a duty to

anticipate possible presence of others on the road and

have a good lookout as held in Chai Phin Chong &

Anor v Zainal Abidin Mohd Salleh & Anor [1998]

4 CLJ 833. In this case, the Court decided that since

the other driver had suddenly stopped his vehicle

without giving any indication, he should be blamed for

the collision as well. Although you should have

maintained a safe distance with the vehicle in front of

you, this does not mean that the other driver had not

contributed to the collision through his negligence.

In fact there are cases where the courts have

found that the driver travelling in front to be entirely at

fault for a rear end collision. For example, the Court in

Kamaruddin Mohd Nor & Anor v Soon Soo Moe

& Anor [1998] 4 CLJ Supp 301 held that the driver

of a lorry swinging from left to right in order to execute

a U-turn and colliding with a motorcyclist coming from

the rear was held totally to blame.

This denotes that if the circumstances leading

to the collision shows negligence on the part of the

driver travelling in the front vehicle, then as the driver

travelling behind, you will not be held entirely at fault.

Therefore, you should not have paid the

damages in full to the other driver because you were

not entirely at fault since there may be contributory

negligence from the other driver. As a driver following

behind a vehicle, it is undeniable that you have a duty to

maintain a safe distance with the vehicle travelling in

front of you. But, in the event of a rear end collision, it

does not mean that you are entirely at fault regardless

of the circumstances leading to the collision as

demonstrated in the above cases.

So, the next time you are involved in a rear end

collision, identify whether there was negligence on the

part of the driver travelling in the vehicle in front and

despite what others might say, it is not always entirely

your fault if you collide with a vehicle on the rear end.

By Barvina Punnusamy

[email protected]


“Why should you be blamed for the

collision when it was the driver who

sudenly stopped without any signal or

indication?” “You may not be entirely at fault for

the collision.”


EVENTS A Child‟s Prerogative: Insight to Your Legal Rights‟ Forum

On 17 February 1995, Malaysia granted accession to the United Nations Treaty on Human Rights - Convention

on the Rights of the Child. Echoing the accession and the need for a more well informed society on children‟s

rights, Great Eastern Life Assurance (Malaysia) Berhad have in collaboration with JHJ, UNICEF Malaysia, Jabatan

Kebajikan Masyarakat Malaysia and Persatuan Siswazah Wanita Malaysia undertook the decision to organize this

forum on the 31st of March 2012. Present were experienced guest speakers from participating organizations,

students from various schools and other attendees who are keen in learning more about children‟s rights. Here,

we embarked on an insightful journey in the quest to secure a better brighter future for our younger generation.

Voice Out - Mr. Jayananda Rao interviewing a

student during the Q&A session

Beginning of „A Child‟s Prerogative - Insight to your Legal Rights‟ Forum‟ by Great Eastern

Ms. Barvina speaking on behalf of JHJ to a crowd

of secondary school students on their rights

Active participation of attendees during an

interactive session with the speakers

Students listening attentively as Mr. Rao

elaborates his viewpoints on the subject matter

The Forum helps provoke thoughts amongst

attendees by means of intellectual games

COMPANY DIRECTORS

- Can members sue them?

By Shobana Padmanathan

Many of us are members of a company. As

members, we entrust the responsibility of the company‟s

affairs being conducted to our best interest in the hands of

the company‟s directors. For efficient and clear

administration, a company‟s Articles outlines the governing

rules, duties and functions of the directors in order to

protect the company and its members from abuse of

powers and conflict of interests. But what happens when

things get out of control? What can the members do to

save themselves from being oppressed by these directors

who are inevitably the the mind and will of the company?

But before all that, who is a member?

There is a difference between a member and a

shareholder. A person is called a member of the company if

his name is included in the company‟s register. He remains a

member so long as his name is not removed from the

company‟s register. However, a shareholder is a person

who carries the ordinary shares of that particular company.

The shareholder will become a member if his name is

included in the company‟s register. Apart from that,

subscribers of the company‟s Memorandum of Association

will by default be deemed the original members of the

company.

So again, how do we control the “controllers of

the company” when they have been given administrative

powers? Fortunately, the law have safeguarded our interest

in various ways so as to provide us the rights to bring an

action against oppressive directors. The next question is,

what is “oppressive”? Any conduct of disregard, injustice,

discrimination and prejudice done towards the company or

its members is considered to be oppressive. This includes,

among others, denial of access to information, excessive

payment of director‟s remuneration, misuse of company‟s

funds or assets, failure to execute an action, unfair share

allotment, performance of conducts damaging to the

company and any other breach of director‟s duties.

The governing law for this area is no other than

the Companies Act of Malaysia 1965 („the Act‟) enacted

by Parliament. The Act provides effective procedures

enabling a company‟s members to obtain remedies in case

of oppression. Members may also seek to bring an action

against a director for breach of fiduciary duties under the

common law.

The courts have customarily been reluctant to

interfere with corporate decisions unless there is a clear

case justifying such an interference. This is so to avoid

vexatious or baseless claims brought up by minority

shareholders against the directors of a company. This is

known as the internal management rule founded in the

English case of Foss vs. Harbottle.

The setback of this rule is that it deprives the

minority from having an avenue for their complaints to be

heard. To solve this problem, certain exceptions were

made, which include allowing members to bring a personal

action against a director if the act complained of constitutes

fraud on the minority.

Moving on, we will look at what the Act has to

offer for the members of a company. Section 181 of the Act

provides a list of reasons and remedies for instances of

oppression. The gist of this section is that if there has been

an oppression of the company‟s members; i.e. the members‟

interests being starkly disregarded, unfairly discriminated or

prejudiced, the law allows them to bring an action in court

to end or to remedy the act complained of. Thereafter, the

court will prohibit or cancel the act, regulate the future

affairs of the company, put the minority member‟s shares up

for sale to other members of the company, or in worst case

scenario, order that the company be wound up.

The question to be decided by the court is whether

the reasonable or legitimate expectations of a member have

been breached. To cite some precedents, the case of

Chiew Sze Sun v Cast Iron Products Sdn Bhd

illustrates that when poor financial reporting led to minority

shareholders‟ interests being side-lined amounted to

oppression. In Ng Chee Keong v Ng Teong Kiat

Highlands Plantation Ltd, the company‟s assets consisted

of tea plantations. As the company have neglected the

plantation, the state government indicated that the property

will be forfeited. The court held that there was oppression

because the directors had conducted the affairs of the

company in disregard of its members‟ interest. Another

important section is sections 218 (1)(f) and 218 (1)(i).

These sections provide for the situation where a company

may be wound up. It is the intention of Parliament that if the

directors have acted in their own interests and not the

interest of its members in an unjust and prejudicial manner,

the Court will wind up the company if they find it “just and

equitable” to do so. “Just and equitable” simply means

fairness in justice by means of reason and conscience.

Examples of situations that have been accepted as valid for

winding up on “just and equitable” grounds include instances

when the purpose of the company could not be achieved,

when the management is deadlocked or is guilty of serious


“A person is called the member of a

company if his name is included in

the register of a company.”

irregularities, and if there is a breakdown of mutual trust

within the management of the company.

The members may also seek to remove a director

who is oppressive under section 128 of the Act and Article

69 of the Articles of Association. Requirements under the

law for a resolution of removal to be passed is firstly, for

members to give notice of such resolution not less than

twenty-eight (28) days prior to the proposed meeting, and

secondly to pass an ordinary resolution by ways of a simple

majority.

A remedy also available under the common law is

the members‟ derivative action. Simply put, it allows a

member to bring an action against the director on behalf of

the company. If the derivative action is successful and the

director is ordered by the company to pay compensation,

the compensation is paid to the company and not to the

individual member. This is because it is the company which

has a right to bring the legal action and not the individual

member.

In conclusion, although the directors of a company

are conferred certain powers to ensure the smooth-running

and effective functioning of a company, the law have

developed various remedies to protect the interests of the

company and its members should the directors act unfairly

and/or oppressively.

By Shobana Padmanathan [email protected]


“The question to be decided by the

court is whether the reasonable or

legitimate expectations of a member

have been breached.”

EVENTS Madagascar III - Movie Day with Orphans Popcorns, Fruit Juices & Lunch Boxes after. Lets Move It!

Thirst

Quenchers!

Saravanan

handing out

bottles of fruit

juice to the

children

before the

movie starts

Long Queue

Boys from

Rumah Anak

Yatim Darul

Kifayah lining

up for their

lunch boxes

after an hour

of giggles


360o

JHJ 360°

STUDENT

ATTACHMENT

PROGRAMME

FEATURE ARTICLE

It has been six months since I first started the JHJ 360° attachment program in Jayadeep Hari and

Jamil. Never once in my entire experience have I regretted the decision of joining the program.

Being involved in four different departments, I have had the chance to experience a wide scope of

legal matters from court documents, agreements, research and court work. This is due to the wide

scope of tasks ranging from legal work to other types of tasks. The program through the tasks

designed gives a slight glimpse into the workings of a law firm from the managerial standpoint to the synchronisation of

work between the lawyers and also the chambering students apart from legal works.

Being given the opportunity to follow the lawyers to court and meeting clients was a real eye opener. For me,

court litigation had been heavily influenced by movies and television. Sitting in a court room for the first time was a

magnificent experience and it gave me a firsthand knowledge to properly understand what I would be embarking upon in

the future. Court ethics and advocacy played such a huge part in the litigation process. It was also crucial to realise the

role that the clients played in the litigation process and the responsibilities we have accepted in handling their case. The

choices we make and the litigation process we go through would greatly affect our clients long after we have forgotten

about it.

One of the task which made me realise to never ignore the small things and take it for granted was the despatch

task. Having to run around everywhere was not something small. Waiting in line for hours merely to submit a document in

court or to get approval by one of the government bodies is not a luxury a chambering student or a lawyer has. Without

the despatch, the law firm would not be able to run smoothly and maybe even come to a standstill with everyone running

from one place to another.

The best thing about the firm was the people inside. The chambering students, the clerks and the lawyers have all

been a great help and have never turned me down. Some even took time out of their busy schedule to explain some of the

basics for the task that I were to handle. Even if some tasks were fictional, they took the greatest effort to explain what

needed to be done and what are the desired results. Overall, the six months I spent in JHJ was a pleasant and enjoyable

one due to the people and the working culture. JHJ really lives up to their motto “We Care”.

Vijayandran

LLB University of London External Programme 2011

I have always wanted to know how a law firm actually functions and how lawyers actually do their

job. Through this JHJ 360° programme, I managed to have a glimpse at how it all works. Through the

programme, I understood that being a lawyer isn‟t easy at all. They are here to get the job done. You

are expected to meet clients‟ needs and protect their interests while considering the case from the

opposing party‟s angle and all the other possible problems that might arise under foreseeable

circumstances. Therefore it is sometimes very difficult to strike a balance between solving the problem and benefiting your

clients because you cannot be disregarding the other party‟s interests as well.

[to be continued on the next page…]

Fong Kai Mun


Months have passed and the three young lads who

joined the JHJ family late last year have completed

their student attachment programme. We have

witnessed their dedication and dilligence throughout

the duration of the programme and are proud of

their accomplishments. Here are their afterthoughts

on JHJ‟s 360° Student Attachment Programme.


As a lawyer you have to deal with all sorts of people; people from different cultures and backgrounds. You are

bound to meet difficulties in dealing with these people. It becomes even more difficult when there are miscommunications

and human errors. Therefore in order to be a lawyer, you would not only need to be smart but you also have to be

resourceful and be able to communicate well with the people that you work with, to be persuasive.

Time appears to be never enough for a busy lawyer. It is known that lawyers have to work long hours and I have

seen lawyers working extra hours just to get the job done. It seems that in order to be a successful lawyer you would also

need to manage your time well.

It is getting increasingly difficult to survive in this competitive industry, the „cut-throat industry‟ as some would call

it. In order to thrive, lawyers have to live up to the standards of a true professional by providing better services to the

clients. If you are really good at what you do, you would not need to hunt for jobs anymore. Opportunities come to you. I

was told that the only thing a lawyer can truly rely on is his/her knowledge and understanding of the law. Afterall, this is

the tool of the trade.

Through this programme, I have also come to an understanding that ethics are very important to a lawyer. There

are legal practitioners committing criminal breach of trusts and absconding with the clients‟ money. But where is the

honour of being a professional if we do not follow the code of conduct? Hopefully I would be able to carry myself well

enough in the future so as not to bring shame to the profession.

What do I have to say about this programme? The JHJ 360° programme is really practical and truly beneficial to a

law student such as myself. I would not have been able to learn as much as I did here if I were to be anywhere else. I am

proud to be an attachment student under the JHJ 360° Programme. I hope that JHJ will continue providing this great

opportunity to other students in the future in order for them to experience what we have experienced. Last but not least,

I just want to say: “Thank You JHJ”.

For the past four months, it has been a great pleasure for me to participate in JHJ‟s 360° Student

Attachment Programme. My JHJ experience kickstarted when I received the Book Prize Award

sponsored by JHJ for LLB Part 2 Finals, which enabled me to partake in this 360° Student Attachment

Programme.

Prior to joining the firm, I have been informed by JHJ‟s Head of Knowledge Department and the two other

Student Attachment Programme participants about the invaluable experiences one can get from this programme. Hence, I

joined the program with great anticipation, hoping to gain appraisable skills and experience through the course of this

programme. Expectantly, this programme have lived up to, if not went beyond my intents.

The biggest impact this Attachment Program have on me perhaps is that it gave me the opportunity to get to

know the legal field better. By joining the Programme, I was exposed not just to all the legal work which I couldn‟t have

experienced during the course of my Law Degree or CLP study, but also to the JHJ team which is vastly experienced in the

legal field. By performing legal works and mingling with the JHJ team, I have gotten to know the legal field from a different

perspective. Hence for me, the Attachment Program is the first step I have taken in the effort to get to know the real legal

world and I do think it‟s a really good start.

Through the programme, I was given the opportunity to deal with both fictional and real legal problems. They

have proved to be challenging, but this opportunity undoubtedly made a great experience. The tasks provided in the

Attachment Program centered on four main areas of the legal practice, namely the Corporate, Conflict Resolution,

Conveyancing and Knowledge Department. Thus by experiencing a wide variation of legal works, I grew tremendously and

was challenged by new tasks on a daily basis.

Learning skills and gaining experience during the course of this program was never a difficult task. This was due to

the overwhelming support by all of the JHJ staff ranging from chambering students to the partners. Advice and tips to good

legal practice had always been taught to us without hesitation by the JHJ team.

Furthermore, I was not only exposed to legal aspects through this program, but also to the management,

marketing, and many other facets of the legal field. This exposure has further broadened my view and mindset besides

making me realize the importance of possessing knowledge outside the realm of legal practice. I truly believe that the

knowledge in other fields will prove to be useful and of importance in the future.

Ng Chin Han



JHJ Outside Work

Kuala Lumpur . Petaling Jaya . Kota Bharu . Melaka

This is a publication produced by the JHJ Knowledge Department. For any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact

us: T: 03-2096 1478 | F: 03-2096 1480 | E: [email protected] | W: www.jhj.com.my

Publisher: Messrs Jayadeep Hari & Jamil, Suite 2.03 (2nd Floor), Block A, Plaza Damansara, Bukit Damansara, 50490 KL.

Printers: Pressworks Enterprise, No 20, Jalan Usaha Satu 25/2A, 40400 Shah Alam.