ILR Bulletin, Issue 2008, Vol 11
November 2008

Print this page

CLJ Law MALAYSIA http://www.cljlaw.com

Introduction:
To get the most out of this law bulletin join CLJ Law Online now - http://www.cljlaw.com/registration.asp
Feel free to forward this to your colleagues. Get this bulletin as email by going to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

INDUSTRIAL LAW REPORTS ISSUE 11 of 2008

AWARDS REPORTED

SUBJECT INDEX

Remedies - Judicial review - Application for - Certiorari - Recognition of trade union - Whether first respondent committed an error of law or misdirected himself in law - Whether decision tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Whether court could exercise discretionary power of judicial review to quash decision
Holiday Villages Of Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Suraya Othman J) [2008] 4 ILR 241

Illegality - Whether the agreement had been against public policy - Whether the Employment (Restrictions) Act 1968 had been applicable to the claimant - Whether company had proven its applicability - Effect of - Employment (Restrictions) Act 1968, s. 5
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Terms and conditions - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been a workman under the definition of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 - Factors to consider - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act, ss. 2 & 30(5)
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Terms and conditions - Retirement clause - Interpretation of - Intention of the clause - Reasonable expectation of the claimants - Past practise of the respondent - Whether the terms bound the respondent - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Terms and conditions - Retirement clause - Whether there had been one - Whether the rules and regulations had bound the claimant - Whether the rules and regulations had been brought to the claimant’s attention - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Terms and conditions - Whether there had been an oral term as to the retirement age applicable to the claimant - Evidence adduced - Effect of - What had been the retirement age in relation to the claimant - How determined - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2 & 20(3)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Type of - Whether it had been a genuine fixed term contract - Interpretation of - Whether there had been genuine long-term factors present in their employment contracts - Claimants contracts automatically renewed every 2 years - Effect of - Whether they had been ordinary employment contracts dressed up in the form of a succession of fixed-term contracts - Effect of - Whether the claimants had come within the framework of the law on workmen’s right to security of employment - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Job functions of the claimant - Whether claimant had been aware of high risk area of illegal logging - Effect of - Claimant’s years of service with the company - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether negligence had been established - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Rakyat Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Yusrin Yusof
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 4 ILR 407

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether claimant had been given sufficient instructions - Instructions given by headquarters before claimant assumed position - Claimant contending not aware of instructions - Instructions filed in office - Whether it had been acceptable - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Whether the punishment of dismissal had been too harsh under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Rakyat Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Yusrin Yusof
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 4 ILR 407

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether the claimant had had sufficient staff to patrol the areas - Measures taken by the claimant - Whether it had been effective - Effect of - Whether the misconduct had been established against the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Rakyat Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Yusrin Yusof
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 4 ILR 407

Breach of company rules and policies - Negligence - Whether claimant could delegate his tasks - Responsibility of the claimant upon delegation - Whether the claimant had been under a duty to check his subordinates work - Effect of - Whether the claimant had taken any initiative in his work - Whether the claimant had been negligent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Rakyat Berjaya Sdn Bhd v. Yusrin Yusof
(Syed Ahmad Radzi Syed Omar) [2008] 4 ILR 407

Insubordination - Whether the respondent had proven the misconduct - Evidence adduced by the respondent - Whether sufficient - Effect of - Whether the claimants had been under an obligation to respond to the allegation of insubordination - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Misconduct - Brochures found on claimant’s desk - Confidential documents found in claimants desk - Claimant absent at the point in time of making the discovery - Whether acceptable - What the respondent should have done - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Misconduct - Claimant following directive of superior - Whether acceptable - Whether the superiors directive had been lawful and reasonable - Effect of - Claimant’s superior subsequently dismissed by company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Doraisingam Apparu v. Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 4 ILR 401

Misconduct - Claimant making purchases vide the internet - Whether the purchase had been made to undermine the COO - Whether it had been against company regulations and policies - Nothing in writing produced by company - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been allowed to surf non-work related sites - Whether it had been a misconduct which had attracted disciplinary action - Whether the respondent’s actions had been equitable under the circumstances - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Misconduct - Claimant not the only one committing the alleged misconduct - No warning letters or show cause letters issued to her in the past - Claimant singled out for disciplinary action - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been victimized - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Misconduct - Claimants refusing new letters of offer - Effect of - Whether the claimants could refuse - New letter of offer containing matters in dispute in court - Effect of - Whether there had been an abuse of power by COW5 - Other actions taken by COW5 against the claimant - Duration of contract unilaterally altered by the respondent - Effect of - Whether respondent’s actions mala fides - Whether proven - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Misconduct - Claimant signing off on checksheets without doing the work - Whether claimant’s actions had been responsible - Effect of - Claimant’s explanations - Whether tenable - Whether misconduct proven by the company - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Doraisingam Apparu v. Maxis Broadband Sdn Bhd
(Rajendran Nayagam) [2008] 4 ILR 401

Misconduct - Claimant using the dial in facility during her period of suspension - Whether that had constituted a misconduct - Nothing mentioned about usage of dial up facility in suspension letter - Whether the respondent had been under a duty to expressly state it in the suspension letter - Effect of - Whether respondent’s actions had been equitable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Misconduct - COW3’s e-mails being forwarded to claimant - Claimant mere recipient of e-mails - Claimant not playing an active part in either procuring or circulating the e-mails - Effect of - COW3 failing to take proactive steps to protect the confidentiality of his e-mails - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, s. 234(1)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Misconduct - Sourcing and making purchases vide the internet - Whether it had been specifically forbidden by the respondent’s rules and regulations - Whether the respondent had proven that the purchases had been made to undermine the COO - Effect of - Whether the purchases had been bought for spying on the COO - Whether proven by the respondent - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Misconduct - Whether proven by the company against the claimant - Conduct of the company - Whether had been reasonable - Effect of - Whether company had acted bona fide - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Misconduct - Whether the claimant had been missing from the office during office hours without leave - Whether the company had managed to establish the misconduct against the claimant - Huge gaps in company’s evidence - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Notice of termination - Grounds cited for termination was claimant reaching the retirement age - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been retired or dismissed - Whether the retirement age had been mandatory - Past practise of the company - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Notice of termination - No grounds apart from retirement age cited for dismissal - Whether the company had succeeded in making out the grounds for her dismissal - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Performance - Unsatisfactory performance - Company’s witnesses not having personal knowledge of alleged non-performance of claimant - Effect of - Whether the company had successfully proven this charge against the claimant - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3) & 30(5)
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Charges - Framing of - Whether the charges had been precise and definite - Whether they had been sufficient for the claimants to answer to them - Effect of - Whether the respondent could rely on anything other than the charges preferred against the claimants to dismiss them - Effect of - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Charges - Framing of - Charges containing non-criminal elements - What needed to be stated in the charge sheet - Whether had been complied with by respondent - Effect of - Whether claimants had been prejudiced - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Procedural impropriety - Charges not read and explained to the claimant - Claimant not asked to plead to the charges - Effect of - Whether it had been in breach of the rules of natural justice and the principles of fairness - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Procedural impropriety - Constitution of the inquiry panel - Whether fair - Way in which inquiry had been conducted - Effect of - Whether the claimant had been denied natural justice - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Procedural impropriety - Whether the DI had been conducted fairly - COW3 was the witness and the prosecutor - Effect of - Whether the inquiry had been a genuine exercise - Whether it had been in compliance with the rules of natural justice - Whether prejudice had been caused to the claimant - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Adverse inference - Respondent’s failure to call material witnesses - No reasons adduced for failure to call - No evidence shown of attempts taken to procure witnesses presence - Effect of - Whether adverse inference could be drawn against respondent - Evidence Act 1950, s. 114(g)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Documentary evidence - Charges preferred against the claimant vague and imprecise - Claimant not given details of exact charges in writing - Whether it had been fair to the claimant - Effect of - Whether the rules of natural justice had been complied with - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Documentary evidence - Findings of the DI - Original notes not adduced - Type written version not endorsed by either the claimant or the panel members - Effect of - Accuracy of transcript brought into question - Whether it could be taken to be the accurate record of the notes of the proceedings in the DI - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Documentary evidence - Notes of the Domestic Inquiry - Not verbatim records of proceedings - Whether could be taken into account by the court - Whether the notes had contained any probative value - Whether the claimant had been denied natural justice - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Jurisdiction - Complaint brought by union for non-compliance of an article by the company in the collective agreement - Effect of - Whether the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables Mfg Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 4 ILR 428

Jurisdiction - Whether a mere referral conferred jurisdiction on the Industrial Court to hear the matter - Past decisions in the matter - Whether applicable - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Jurisdiction - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Establishment of the Malaysian Bar - Functions of the council - Council the management arm of the Malaysian Bar - Intention of the legislature - Effect of - Whether the Malaysian Bar had been a statutory body - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20 & Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 41, 47(1), 54, 56 and 57
Lim Eye Thun v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2008] 4 ILR  298

Jurisdiction - Whether the Industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter - Whether the claimant had required the consent of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong before referring this case to the Industrial Court - In what circumstances would the consent of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong have been required - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20, 20(3) and 26(2)
Lim Eye Thun v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2008] 4 ILR 298

Procedure - Pleadings - Company raising issue of mistake in entering into agreement - Company not pleading the same - Effect of - Whether court could look into this ground as justification for dismissing the claimant - Company relying on clause in agreement for termination of claimant - Whether they could - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Remedies - Compensation awarded - Whether claimant had contributed to her dismissal - Claimant’s position in the company - What the claimant should have done - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20
Dynacraft Industries Sdn Bhd v. Chua Kim Yock
(Chew Soo Ho) [2008] 4 ILR 371

Remedies - Compensation - Claimant claiming for arrears of wages - Whether proven - Whether would be allowed - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Remedies - Compensation - Fixed sum of compensation - Probationer claimant - Rights of the claimant as a probationer - What sort of compensation was she entitled to - Factors to consider - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Zainab Awang v. Radio Wanita Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 451

Remedies - Punishment - Decision to terminate by Domestic Inquiry panel minority decision - No justification given by company as to why minority decision followed - Effect of - Whether the company had acted bona fide - Whether punishment meted out against the claimant had been reasonable - Whether dismissal without just cause or excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Noormala Othman v. OTC Security Solutions Sdn Bhd
(Franklin Goonting) [2008] 4 ILR 279

Remedies - Punishment - Mitigating factors - Unblemished records of the claimants - Respondent failing to take into account - Respondent taking into account irrelevant things - Effect of - Whether the respondent’s actions had been mala fide - Intention of the respondent - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Remedies - Punishment - Mitigating factors - Whether there had been contributory conduct on the part of the claimants - Whether the respondent had contributed to the ensuing confusion which had led to the alleged insubordination - Effect of - Way in which claimants had been treated - Past service records of the claimants - Effect of - Whether dismissal without just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 20(3)
Lim Ean Choo & 12 Ors v. Tadika Tzu Yu (Tzu Yu Kindergarten)
(P Iruthayaraj D Pappusamy) [2008] 4 ILR 317

Remedies - Quantum of damages - Backwages - How arrived at - Factors to consider - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Jeffrey Ronald Pearce v. Nacap Asia Pacific Sdn Bhd
(Fredrick Indran XA Nicholas) [2008] 4 ILR 260

Trade union - Recognition - Claim for - Membership verification - Whether there was sufficient material and evidence to support the finding of the 59.32 percentage of membership - Whether there was legal requirement for DGTU and first respondent to distinguish between seasonal or permanent workmen for purpose of trade union recognition - Whether first respondent’s decision so outrageous or defiance of logic - Whether tainted with illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Whether court could exercise discretionary power of judicial review to quash decision
Holiday Villages Of Malaysia Sdn Bhd v. YB Menteri Sumber Manusia & Anor
(Suraya Othman J) [2008] 4 ILR 241

Collective Agreement - Article on check-off - Whether it had been mandatory for the company to comply - Article 29 a culmination of collective bargaining - Company complying with article for 9 years - Effect of - Whether company could unilaterally stop the deductions - Whether it had amounted to a non-compliance of a collective agreement - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1)
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables Mfg Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 4 ILR 428

Collective Agreement - Article on check off - Whether the workmen who had been union members had made a request for deductions to be made from their wages pursuant to the Employment Act 1955 - Workmen had not objected to the deductions made by the company in that respect - Whether that had amounted to an implied request - Effect of - Whether that consent had been withdrawn by the workmen in writing - Letters prepared by the company - Circumstances under which letters prepared by the company - Validity of the letters withdrawing consent - Effect of - Whether the company had meddled in union affairs by preparing the letters - Whether it had constituted an unfair labour practise - Employment Act 1955, s. 24
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables Mfg Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 4 ILR 428

144 workmen resigning from the company en bloc - Whether they had still remained members of the union - Whether relevant to consider - Resignation letters put in - Perusal of - Whether it had constituted a proper resignation - Letters not addressed to General Secretary of the Union - Whether the Rules and Constitution of the union had been complied with - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables Mfg Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 4 ILR 428

"Check-off" - Definition of - What constitutes - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, s. 56(1) & Employment Act 1955, s. 24
Electrical Industry Workers’ Union v. Mitti Cables Mfg Sdn Bhd
(Susila Sithamparam) [2008] 4 ILR 428

"Statutory authority" - Whether the Malaysian Bar and Council fell within the definition - Effect of - Whether the position of Director of Complaints Secretariat was a statutory appointment - Whether the Industrial Court could interfere with decision of statutory authority on appointment and revocation of appointment - Effect of - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 2, 52(1) and Part VI & Legal Profession Act 1976 ss. 98(1) and 98(3)
Lim Eye Thun v. Majlis Peguam Malaysia
(Yeoh Wee Siam) [2008] 4 ILR 298

Prosidur - Perwakilan - Peguam responden bertindak sebagai pengerusi panel siasatan dalaman - Kesannya - Sama ada timbul isu percanggahan kepentingan - Peguam responden tidak berniat untuk memberi keterangan sebagai saksi - Sama ada peguam responden merupakan saksi penting berkenaan cara siasatan dalaman telah dijalankan - Kemungkinan peguam responden akan dipanggil sebagai saksi - Kesannya - Sama ada peguam responden boleh terus mewakili responden di mahkamah - Sama ada pembuangan kerja adalah tanpa alasan atau sebab yang adil - Akta Mahkamah Perusahaan 1967, s. 20(3) & Kaedah-Kaedah Profesion Undang-Undang (Amalan dan Kesopanan) 1978 k. 4, 5(a), 27(a) dan 28(a)
Low Pak Chan lwn. Hitachi High-Technologies IPC (M) Sdn Bhd
(Kamaruzaman Ab Jalil) [2008] 4 ILR 307

ILR Bulletin
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe go to http://www.cljlaw.com/ilrsubscribefrm.asp

Copyright ©1997 - 2008 CLJ Legal Network Sdn Bhd (192353 V)
Email: enquiries@cljlaw.com Phone: 603-4270-5400 Fax No : 603-4270 5401 & 603-4270 5402