These accounts describe how we approached matters, communicated with clients, and navigated proceedings — not unverifiable outcome claims.
Back to Home"We had a contractor dispute that had been sitting unresolved for several months. Tegas sent us a clear written review within two weeks — and explained both what we had going for us and what we did not. That honesty was actually what made us trust them with the next steps."
Ahmad Hafizi
Shah Alam, Selangor · March 2025
"Recovering a commercial debt through litigation is a slow process — I knew that going in. What I did not expect was how consistently the team kept me briefed after each hearing. I was never left wondering what had happened in court or what the next step was."
Lim Teck Seng
Klang, Selangor · February 2025
"Our matter went to arbitration under AIAC rules. Tegas advised us on the forum selection before we chose it, which I appreciate because it meant we went in understanding why we were there. The preparation and the position paper were thorough."
Puan Norzahra
Subang Jaya, Selangor · January 2025
"I engaged Tegas for a letter of demand and an assessment of whether the matter was worth pursuing further. They were direct with me — the prospects were not certain, and they said so. I valued that more than false reassurance. We settled within six weeks of the letter."
Rajendran Krishnan
Petaling Jaya, Selangor · March 2025
"As a small business owner, I was concerned about the cost of High Court proceedings. Tegas explained the fee structure before I committed and outlined what additional phases might cost. That allowed me to plan appropriately rather than discover fees at each stage."
Chan Wei Ming
Shah Alam, Selangor · April 2025
"A shareholder dispute within our company had created significant internal tension. Tegas walked us through the Section 346 application process clearly. The advocate handling the matter was accessible and gave us a realistic picture at every stage — not just optimistic projections."
Shahril Ibrahim
Shah Alam, Selangor · February 2025
These are anonymised accounts. Names and identifying details have been changed. The focus is on the reasoning and path taken, not on outcomes — because the way a matter is handled tells you more about a practice than a headline result.
Challenge
A services company had three outstanding invoices totalling a significant sum under a two-year agreement. The counterparty disputed the quality of the services delivered, making the recovery contested rather than straightforward. Limitation was not yet an immediate concern, but it was approaching.
Approach
We began with a matter review that identified the contractual basis for the invoices and assessed the service quality arguments the counterparty had raised. A letter of demand was issued setting out the contractual position clearly. When the counterparty did not respond, we advised on filing a Writ and assessed the prospect of a summary judgment application given that the dispute had limited factual complexity.
Path Taken
A Writ action was filed in the Shah Alam Sessions Court. The matter involved a contested exchange of affidavits and required attendance at three case management hearings. The client was briefed after each hearing. The matter proceeded at the pace the court set; the client was not left guessing at any point.
Challenge
A subcontractor in a commercial fit-out project was owed a substantial sum by the main contractor. The main contract contained an AIAC arbitration clause. The subcontractor had limited documentation from the early phases of the project and was uncertain about the strength of their position on disputed variation claims.
Approach
We reviewed the subcontract and assessed which claims were well-supported by documentation and which were more exposed. We advised the client candidly on the variation claims before filing — some of them would be difficult to sustain. We filed a notice of arbitration limited to the claims we considered properly supported, and assisted with arbitrator appointment under the AIAC Rules.
Path Taken
The arbitration proceeded through an exchange of written submissions and a two-day hearing. A position paper prepared for the mediation phase that followed the preliminary hearing assisted in structuring a settlement discussion. The resulting settlement agreement was drafted by us and executed by both parties.
Challenge
A minority shareholder in a private company alleged that the majority shareholders had conducted the company's affairs in a manner that was oppressive or unfairly prejudicial. There was limited documentation beyond the company's constitutional documents and some internal correspondence. The relief sought included a share purchase order.
Approach
We advised at the outset that the outcome of a Section 346 application is difficult to predict with confidence, and that the court has wide discretion in crafting remedies. We focused on building the evidential record from available documents, filing the Originating Summons in the Shah Alam High Court, and preparing an affidavit that set out the factual position in clear terms.
Path Taken
The matter is ongoing. The client is briefed after each case management direction. We have been direct about what the application can achieve and what remains uncertain — which is the only responsible approach to a matter of this nature at this stage.
Telephone
+60 3 5514 8267Address
Level 9, Plaza PerangsangOffice Hours
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm
Sat 9am–1pm
An initial enquiry carries no obligation to proceed. We review each matter individually and advise candidly.