Client satisfaction

Client Experiences

What Clients Say About Working With Litigon

The perspectives shared here reflect the experience of clients who have engaged Litigon across our three core service areas — litigation, ADR, and appellate matters.

Back to Home
380+Matters completed
14+Years in practice
96%Client satisfaction
4.8Average client rating

Client Testimonials

Across all three services

We came to Litigon facing a contract dispute we thought would drag on for years. The initial strategy session gave us an honest picture of where we stood — including the parts we did not want to hear. That clarity allowed us to settle on reasonable terms within four months.

TW

Tan Wei Kiat

Director, Kuala Lumpur — March 2026

The arbitration process felt overwhelming at first. Litigon walked us through the AIAC procedure step by step, and our submissions were thorough and well-prepared. The award came in our favour. I appreciated that they were realistic about timelines throughout — no empty optimism.

NR

Nora Rahimah

Managing Partner, Selangor — February 2026

We needed to appeal a High Court decision on a commercial tenancy matter. Litigon reviewed the judgment carefully and identified two grounds worth pursuing. The written submissions at the Court of Appeal were clearly reasoned, and the oral argument was handled with composure. The appeal was partly allowed.

DS

David Sundram

Business Owner, Kuala Lumpur — January 2026

Our company faced a shareholder dispute that had been mishandled elsewhere. Litigon took over the matter and restructured our position entirely. What struck me was the care taken to understand the commercial dynamics — not just the legal points. That made a real difference.

AZ

Azwan Zainudin

CEO, Technology Sector, KL — March 2026

The mediation they coordinated resolved a dispute we had been circling for eighteen months. The preparation work was thorough — they had anticipated the other party's likely position and prepared responses in advance. The settlement reached was something we could genuinely live with.

LM

Lim Mei Ying

Operations Director, Penang — February 2026

I engaged Litigon for the litigation strategy session before committing to proceedings. The session was direct and evidence-based. They recommended against one aspect of my intended claim and suggested a modified approach — which turned out to be sound advice when the other side responded.

KP

Krishnan Pillai

Independent Contractor, KL — March 2026

Case Studies

Selected matter summaries

Litigation Strategy

Construction Contract Dispute — High Court

Challenge

A construction contractor faced a MYR 2.1 million claim from a project owner alleging defective works and delay. Prior correspondence had complicated the contractor's position, and there were questions about which contract terms applied.

Our Approach

Litigon conducted a detailed document review, identified inconsistencies in the opposing party's contractual basis, and advised on a counterclaim for unpaid retention. The litigation strategy was restructured to focus on the contractual entitlement rather than the defects defence alone.

Settlement reached before trial — contractor received net payment of MYR 380,000. Timeline: 8 months from strategy engagement to settlement.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Commercial Lease Dispute — Mediation

Challenge

A retail tenant and landlord disputed the scope of lease reinstatement obligations following early termination. Both parties wished to preserve a long-standing commercial relationship but had reached an impasse through direct negotiation.

Our Approach

Litigon recommended mediation over litigation given the ongoing relationship. Submissions were prepared to frame the tenant's reinstatement position clearly. In the mediation session, the outcome framework was negotiated down to a practical cost-sharing arrangement.

Mediated settlement within 6 weeks of engagement. Cost to client: less than 15% of the amount in dispute. Landlord relationship preserved.

Appellate Advocacy

Debt Recovery — Court of Appeal

Challenge

A financial services company had obtained judgment at the High Court in a debt recovery matter but faced an appeal from the defendant challenging the enforceability of the loan agreement. The trial court judgment was competent but the grounds of appeal raised a point of legal interpretation requiring careful attention.

Our Approach

Litigon prepared written submissions addressing the point of interpretation with reference to Malaysian and Commonwealth authority. The oral argument at the Court of Appeal addressed the judge's queries directly and with precision.

Appeal dismissed. Original judgment upheld in full. Costs awarded to client. Duration from brief to hearing: 11 months.

Address

44 Jalan Pinang, 50450 Kuala Lumpur

Office Hours

Mon–Fri: 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
Sat: 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM

Ready to discuss your matter?

We are available to review your situation and provide a candid view of the options — without pressure or commitment at that stage.

Request a Consultation