V.P. Nathan & Partners was established in 1968 by our founding partner Dato’ Sri V.P. Nathan who till today helms the firm and all it’s branches.

Following the steady success of the firm we opened branches to cover the whole of Semenanjung Malaysia and are located in the following cities:

  • Kuala Lumpur since 1968 - To handle matters in Selangor, Wilayah Persekutan (Kuala Lumpur), Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Johor and Perak.
  • Malacca since 1968 - To handle matters in Negeri Sembilan, Melaka and Johor. In respect of assignments handled by us for Malacca and Johor matters, if the cases cannot be settled and counseled from the Petaling Jaya office, we will not charge you any travelling or subsistence allowances.
  • Penang since 1978 - To handle matters in Perlis, Kedah, Penang, and Perak.
  • Kuala Terengganu since 1997 - To handle matters in Terengganu and Kelantan.
  • Kuantan since 2006 - To handle matters in Pahang and Terengganu.

Landmark cases by the V.P Nathan & Partners:

Ti Huck & Anor v Mohamed Yusof [1973] 2 MLJ 62

One of the question of laws before the Federal Court was the distinction between the claim for loss of future earnings and loss of earning capacity. To summarize the judgment of FC, it was held that for loss of future earnings damages to be assessed based on real assessable los whilst loss of earning capacity to be assessed by way of general damages (i.e. by proving risk of employment disadvantages)

Sumarni v Yow Bing Kwong & Anor [2008] 1 MLJ 608

The appeal was in relation to the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for loss of future earnings. The Court of Appeal in dismissing the appeal held that apart from proving good health, the plaintiff must also show that she would continue to earn if not because of the injury pursuant to S. 28A (2)(c)(i) CLA. However, as her work permit had expired, the COA held that there was no real assessable loss.

Tune Protect Malaysia v Mohd Rosli Bin Tawang Kota Bharu SCCA: DA-A53KJ-452-09/2018

Despite the amendments to s. 2 of RTA which removed the exception to private road, the Court agreed that for the policy to be enforceable the accident must have occurred on a road to which the public has unrestricted access and it connects from one place to another.