CASE OF THE WEEK

The defendants complained in respect of the first plaintiff/respondent's actions as an advocate and solicitor, practising at Tetuan Poh Mahadzir & Company (second respondent), to the Disciplinary Board (`DB'). Acting upon the complaint the DB appointed a Disciplinary Committee (`DC') to hear and investigate the complaint. Subsequently, the plaintiffs/respondents (`respondents') filed an application for judgment in default of appearance against the defendants. The respondents obtained the Orders and served the draft Orders on the DC. The respondents relied on the Orders to, inter alia, restrain the DC from hearing and investigating the complaint on the grounds that the DC would be in breach of the Orders. The DC therefore decided not to proceed with the hearing and investigation of the complaint. The appellant (`Majlis Peguam') filed its applications by summons in chambers to intervene and to vary the Orders. Its applications were dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that Majlis Peguam had failed to show how its legal and statutory rights have been affected. The learned judge held that it should be the DB and not Majlis Peguam who should make the applications. The judge also held that the fact that the defendants had not taken any steps to set aside the Orders showed that they had been lackadaisical in their defence and therefore begged the question whether they were really serious in pursuing their complaint. At the hearing of the appeal, the respondents submitted that the defendants' application to set aside the judgment in the High Court had been dismissed and hence the doctrine of res judicata applied. It was the respondents' contention that the DC remained restrained from proceeding as there was nothing to intervene.

Held (allowing the appeal with costs)

Per Abdul Wahab Patail JCA delivering the judgment of the court:

(1) Except for the purposes of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board, the only body that may undertake and defend legal action for and against the Malaysian Bar is the Malaysian Bar, represented by Majlis Peguam pursuant to ss. 42 and 47 of the Legal Profession Act 1976. The terms Malaysian Bar and Majlis Peguam were used interchangeably. Majlis Peguam or the Malaysian Bar is no less a "party aggrieved" when the DB of the Malaysian Bar is prevented from carrying out its responsibilities than a party who is denied a right he is entitled to. The learned judge fell into error when he allowed form to prevail over substance without first addressing the question whether the form affected the substance. (para 10)

(2) From the writ of summons and the summons in chambers, the apparent focus of concern appeared to be the letter of complaint by the defendants. It became evident that the investigation by the DC was the focus of concern when the drafts of the Orders were served on the DC. It was clear that the injunction was to prevent the DB from acting upon and the DC from investigating the complaint. Majlis Peguam ought therefore to have been made a party. This was more so when the only party appearing before the learned judge were the respondents themselves. (paras 12-13)

(3) The defendants' lackadaisical attitude in the court proceedings or choosing not to defend their legal rights in the court may warrant consideration by the DB but they were irrelevant to the consideration of the application before the learned judge to amend the Orders to enable the DB and the DC to carry out their statutory responsibilities to investigate and if warranted, to act upon a complaint by the defendants. (para 13)

(4) The respondents' argument that there was nothing to intervene was misleading. There was reason to intervene and to seek variation of the Orders at the time the application was filed before the High Court, to enable Majlis Peguam to carry out its statutory obligation to investigate a complaint by a client of a legal firm for improper conduct. (paras 14 & 15)

Bahasa Malaysia Translation Of Headnotes

Defendan-defendan membuat aduan berkaitan dengan tindakan plaintif/responden pertama sebagai peguamcara dan peguambela, yang beramal di Tetuah Poh Mahadzir & Company (responden kedua), kepada Lembaga Tatatertib (`LT'). Bertindak atas aduan tersebut LT melantik Jawatankuasa Disiplin (`JD') untuk mendengar dan menyiasat aduan tersebut. Kemudian, plaintif/responden (`responden-responden') memfailkan permohonan untuk penghakiman ingkar kehadiran terhadap defendan-defendan. Responden-responden memperoleh Perintah dan menyerahkan deraf perintah kepada JD. Responden-responden menyandar atas Perintah tersebut untuk, antara lain, menghalang JD daripada mendengar dan menyiasat aduan atas alasan bahawa JD akan melanggar Perintah tersebut. JD oleh itu memutuskan untuk tidak meneruskan dengan pendengaran dan siasatan aduan tersebut. Perayu (`Majlis Peguam') memfailkan permohonan melalui saman dalam kamar untuk campur tangan dan mengubah Perintah tersebut. Permohonannya ditolak oleh Mahkamah Tinggi atas alasan bahawa Majlis Peguam gagal menunjukkan bagaimana hak-hak undang-undang dan statutorinya terjejas. Hakim yang bijaksana memutuskan bahawa sepatutnya LT dan bukan Majlis Peguam yang wajar membuat permohonan tersebut. Hakim juga memutuskan bahawa fakta bahawa defendan-defendan tidak mengambil apa-apa langkah untuk mengenepikan Perintah tersebut menunjukkan bahawa mereka tidak mengendahkan pembelaan mereka dan oleh itu adalah menjadi persoalan sama ada mereka benar-benar serius dalam meneruskan aduan mereka. Semasa perbicaraan rayuan, responden-responden menghujah bahawa permohonan defendan-defendan untuk mengenepikan penghakiman di Mahkamah Tinggi telah ditolak dan oleh itu doktrin res judicata beraplikasi. Responden-responden juga menghujah bahawa JD tetap dihalang daripada prosiding tersebut kerana tidak ada alasan untuk mereka campur tangan.

Diputuskan, (membenarkan rayuan dengan kos)

Oleh Abdul Wahab Patail HMR menyampaikan penghakiman mahkamah:

(1) Kecuali bagi tujuan Lembaga Kelayakan Profesion Undang-Undang, satu-satunya badan yang boleh membawa dan membela tindakan undang-undang bagi pihak dan menentang Badan Peguam Malaysia adalah Badan Peguam Malaysia sendiri, yang diwakili oleh Majlis Peguam berikutan ss. 42 dan 47 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976. Terma-terma Badan Peguam Malaysia dan Majlis Peguam digunakan secara saling berganti. Majlis Peguam atau Badan Peguam Malaysia tidak kurang daripada merupakan "pihak terkilan" apabila LT Badan Peguam Malaysia dihalang daripada menjalankan tanggungjawabnya berbanding sesuatu pihak yang dinafikan haknya sendiri. Hakim yang bijaksana terkhilaf apabila beliau membenarkan bentuk mengatasi intipati tanpa memberikan perhatian kepada persoalan sama ada bentuk telah menjejaskan intipati.

(2) Daripada writ saman dan saman dalam kamar, fokus yang jelas dititikberatkan adalah surat aduan oleh defendan-defendan. Adalah jelas daripada keterangan bahawa siasatan oleh JD menjadi fokus pertimbangan apabila deraf Perintah diserahkan kepada JD. Jelas bahawa injunksi tersebut adalah untuk menghalang LT daripada bertindak atas dan JD daripada menyiasat aduan tersebut. Majlis Peguam oleh itu wajar dijadikan pihak. Lebih-lebih lagi apabila satu-satunya pihak yang hadir di hadapan hakim yang bijaksana adalah responden-responden sendiri.

(3) Sikap tidak endah defendan-defendan di dalam prosiding mahkamah atau memilih untuk tidak membela hak undang-undang mereka di mahkamah kemungkinan mewajarkan pertimbangan LT tetapi ia tidak relevan untuk pertimbangan permohonan di hadapan hakim yang bijaksana untuk meminda Perintah tersebut bagi membolehkan LT dan JD menjalankan kewajipan statutorinya untuk menyiasat dan jika perlu, bertindak atas aduan oleh defendan-defendan.

(4) Hujahan responden-responden bahawa tidak ada alasan untuk campur tangan adalah kurang tepat. Terdapat alasan untuk campur tangan dan memohon perubahan Perintah tersebut pada masa permohonan difailkan di Mahkamah Tinggi, untuk membolehkan Majlis Peguam menjalankan kewajipan statutorinya menyiasat aduan oleh seorang anak guam terhadap tindakan tidak wajar firma guaman.

Case(s) referred to:

Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam v. Hoo Lin Coln & Anor [2008] 4 CLJ 317 FC (refd)

Legislation referred to:

Legal Profession Act 1976, ss. 41, 42(1)(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), 47, 57(b), (c), 93(1), (2), 103E, 137

For the appellant/intervener - Alvin Julian (V Anil Raj with him);
M/s Bodipalar Ponnudurai De Silva

Counsel:

For the respondents/plaintiffs - Mahadzir Nasaruddin; M/s Poh Mahadzir & Co

[Appeal from High Court, Kuala Lumpur; Civil Appeal No: S7-23-132-2008]

Reported by S Barathi