Ex-minister Zaid Ibrahim’s suit against prominent law firm using his name to go to trial

Justice Ahmad said the plaintiff can still set up his own firm under a different style and name as he ‘wanted back his name’ although without the ‘and Co’, for example, ‘Zaid Ibrahim and Associates’ or ‘The Chambers of Zaid Ibrahim’. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng
Justice Ahmad said the plaintiff can still set up his own firm under a different style and name as he ‘wanted back his name’ although without the ‘and Co’, for example, ‘Zaid Ibrahim and Associates’ or ‘The Chambers of Zaid Ibrahim’. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates.


KUALA LUMPUR, June 9 — The High Court here today dismissed legal firm Zaid Ibrahim & Co (Zico)’s application to strike out a suit by former minister in the prime minister’s department Datuk Mohd Zaid Ibrahim to stop the firm from using his name in legal practice and to demand the return of the firm’s name.

Judge Datuk Ahmad Bache ruled that it was not fit and proper to dispose of the case based on the pleadings and affidavit evidence alone.

In the ruling made available to the media, Justice Ahmad said the court had perused all the affidavits and was satisfied that both parties were at variance on many issues, as there are many conflicting facts between them.

“Hence, a trial should be conducted whereby witnesses will be called to give voice evidence. They can be examined, cross examined and re-examined. The striking out application by the defendant (Zico) is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs,” he said in his decision made through an email, today.

The judge also rejected Mohd Zaid’s request to obtain an interim injunction to bar the law firm from using his name for the practice, pending disposal of his lawsuit.

Justice Ahmad said the plaintiff can still set up his own firm under a different style and name as he “wanted back his name” although without the “and Co”, for example, “Zaid Ibrahim and Associates” or “The Chambers of Zaid Ibrahim”.

“The plaintiff never provided evidence that he will be facing difficulty in obtaining work if he is unable to use the name of Zaid Ibrahim & Co. In fact, there is no evidence adduced by the plaintiff taking any steps to start a law firm.

The plaintiff also did not display any urgency in restraining the firm from using his name, as he only filed this action recently, after sitting on it for a long period,” he said.

The judge said the court had earlier held that after Mohd Zaid sold his remaining shares in the firm in 2008, not only did he cease to be a partner, but he had no more interest in the defendant. 

Therefore, he said that as not being a partner to the firm, the plaintiff had no rights to its assets including goodwill.

Justice Ahmad further said if the injunction was granted, it would affect the livelihood of many individuals working with the firm, namely 250 personnel, including partners, lawyers and staff, and this would also have an adverse impact on the anchor firm Zico Law, an Asean network of law firms.

The judge said that as being the largest law firm in Malaysia, the defendant also at any given time held large sums of money as stakeholders, which included the sale of the infamous Equanimity yacht.  

“Such is the level of confidence in the firm that if the injunction is granted, there will be huge potential loses to the firm monetarily, and to its goodwill and reputation which the plaintiff would not be able to compensate,” he said before setting Aug 17 for case management.

Mohd Zaid was represented by lawyer Datuk Malik Imtiaz Sarwar while Tan Sri Tommy Thomas appeared for Zico.

On November 24 last year, Mohd Zaid filed the writ of summons and statement of claim against Zico to stop the firm from using his name in legal practice and to demand the return of the firm’s name, besides seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from using his name in any form or style as the name of the firm.

Meanwhile, Zico in a statement said they welcomed the decision and would continue its business as usual.

The statement added that the firm never disputed the plaintiff’s right to set up his own law firm with his own name under a different style. — Bernama

You May Also Like

Related Articles