Content
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1325-07/2016
Loading…
/akn/my/judgment/court-of-appeal/2018/83e6e0cf-a619-4e22-9299-4c6120c4d66d
Court of Appeal of Malaysia23 Feb 2018W-02(NCVC)(W)-1325-07/2016
The written judgment as the court issued it, with the coram, case number, and source links. Every paragraph has its own anchor.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
Not yet cited by a later decision.
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
“has been filed as a separate action. In addition, the matter in dispute relates to the conduct of solicitors and the appropriate statutory authority to deal with such issues has been set out in the Legal Profession Act 1976 and the manner how the complaint should be initiated is also set out in the same Act. Further, w”
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Content
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MALAYSIA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION) CIVIL APPEAL NO: W-02(NCVC)(W)-1325-07/2016
1
CHONG KOK HON (No. K/P: 650314-10-7383)
2
TEE TEAN AIK (No. K/P: 570606-05-5589)
3
POH TZU SENG (No. K/P: 560824-01-6327)
4
CHOW SOI WAH (No. K/P: 630928-08-5088)
5
SIEW KONG TECK (No. K/P: 600225-10-6447)
6
GAN WEI HIAN (No. K/P: 740914-03-6039)
7
CHIAM TOH NAM (No. K/P: 680913-10-6259)
8
LAM KONG CHIN (No. K/P: 640903-10-6929) … APPELLANTS AND 2 JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY CHERAS SENTRAL KL … RESPONDENT (Previously known as ‘Joint Management Body Plaza Phoenix Kuala Lumpur”) (Dalam Perkara Mahkamah Tinggi Malaya di Kuala Lumpur Guaman No. 22NCVC-537-09/2015
1
MAYLAND CENTURY SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 606782-D)
2
VIEW ESTEEM SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 713918-H) …PLAINTIF-PLAINTIF
1
BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA CHERAS SENTRAL KL (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai "Badan Pengurusan Bersama Plaza Phoenix Kuala Lumpur")
2
CHONG KOK HON (No. K/P: 650314-10-7383)
3
TEE TEAN AIK (No. K/P: 570606-05-5589)
4
POH TZU SENG (No. K/P: 560824-01-6327)
5
CHOW SOI WAH (No. K/P: 630928-08-5088)
6
SIEW KONG TECK (No. K/P: 600225-10-6447) 3
7
GAN WEI HIAN (No. K/P: 740914-03-6039)
8
CHIAM TOH NAM (No. K/P: 680913-10-6259)
9
LAM KONG CHIN (No. K/P: 640903-10-6929)
10
SI SOO HONG (No. K/P: 641005-05-5378)
11
FOO SOO KONG (No. K/P: 630607-10-7311) … DEFENDAN-DEFENDAN) CORAM: Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer, JCA Badariah binti Sahamid, JCA Mary Lim Thiam Suan, JCA Hamid Sultan Bin Abu Backer, JCA (Delivering Judgment of the Court) GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT [1] The appellants’ appeal is against the decision of the learned High Court judge who gave declaratory orders in an interlocutory application (encl. 49) to ascertain who are the rightful solicitors acting for the respondent who was the 1st defendant in the proceedings before the High Court. The appellants were the 2nd to the 9th defendants. At page 16 of the Record of Appeal (Jil. 1), 4 the application incorrectly states that it is moved by the plaintiffs. This is far from the truth and this is where the confusion first arose. The application is at the behest of the 1st defendant. But, in the affidavits exchanged, the appellants also claimed to represent the 1st defendant. As will soon become evident, the application only concerned the defendants. [2] The application read as follows: “1. Deklarasi bahawa perlantikan Tetuan Andrew Davis & Co sebagai peguamcara Defendan Pertama bertarikh 14.12.2015 adalah sah dan teratur;
2
Bahawa Perlantikan Tetuan Oh Teik Keng & Partners sebagai pegaumcara adalah tidak sah dan/atau harus diketepikan dengan serta merta;
3
Kos permohonan ini dijadikan kos dalam kausa; dan
4
Relief sedemikian yang lain sepertimana yang dianggapkan adil dan sesuai oleh Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini.” [3] The Memorandum of Appeal reads as follows: “1. Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila mengenepikan perlantikan Tetuan Oh Teik Keng & Partners sebagai peguamcara Responden dan mengisytiharkan perlantikkan Tetuan Andrew Davis & Co sebagai peguamcara sah Responden. 5
2
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal mempertimbangkan dan/ataupun menyimpulkan bahawa perlantikkan Tetuan Andrew Davis & Co telah dibuat oleh ahli-ahli jawatankuasa Responden yang tidak sah (illegal).
3
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal mempertimbangkan dan/ataupun memutuskan bahawa pengeluaran Notis Untuk Bertindak Sendiri pada 10/12/2015 oleh ahli-ahli Respondan adalah tidak sah (illegal) dan sekaligus menyimpulkan bahawa pada masa Tetuan Andrew Davis & Co dilantik, Responden tidak diwakili oleh peguam lain.
4
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal mempertimbangkan dan/ataupun menyimpulkan bahawa perlantikkan ahli-ahli Responden yang dibuat pada 24/10/2015 adalah tidak sah (illegal) memandangkan bercanggah dengan Perintah Injunksi bertarikh 23/10/2015 dalam Guaman No. 22NCvC-566- 10/2015.
5
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal mempertimbangkan dan/ataupun menyimpulkan bahawa perlantikkan Tetuan Oh Teik Keng & Partners telah dibuat secara sah oleh ahli-ahli jawatankuasa Responden yang dilantik secara betul dan sah dan tidak bertentangan dengan mana-mana perintah Mahkamah mahupun undang-undang.
6
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila memutuskan bahawa Mesyuarat Agung Responden yang diadakan pada 24/10/2015 adalah sah walaupun ianya bercanggah dengan Perintah Injunksi bertarikh 23/10/2015 dalam Guaman No. 22NCvC-566-10/2015. 6
7
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana terkhilaf dari segi fakta apabila memutuskan bahawa keesahan Perintah Injunksi bertarikh 23/10/2015 dalam Guaman No. 22NCvC-566-10/2015 boleh dipersoalkan kerana tiada pendedahan fakta penting dan lengkap oleh Perayu-Perayu dan peguamcara Perayu Encik Oh Teik Keng walaupun Tetuan Oh Teik Keng & Partners tidak mewakili Defendan-Defendan di dalam Guaman No. 22NCvC-566-10/2015 semasa Perintah Injunksi bertarikh 23/10/2015 diperolehi.
8
Yang Arif Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi yang bijaksana telah terkhilaf dari segi fakta dan undang-undang apabila gagal memberikan pertimbangan kehakiman ke atas segala keterangan secara keseluruhan" [4] The instant case is a caustic dispute among solicitors on the issue who should act for the 1st defendant in the suit. [5] When the matter came before us, we realised that the declaration sought in the interlocutory application had nothing to do with the dispute and the prayers of the parties in the main pleadings. In consequence, we took the view that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter unless it has been filed as a separate action. In addition, the matter in dispute relates to the conduct of solicitors and the appropriate statutory authority to deal with such issues has been set out in the Legal Profession Act 1976 and the manner how the complaint should be initiated is also set out in the same Act. Further, we took the view that this is not a fit and proper case to entertain declaratory prayers. Support for the proposition is found in a number of cases and to name a few are as follows: 7
i
(i) In Amalan Tepat Sdn Bhd v Panflex Sdn Bhd [2011] 7 CLJ 121, the Federal Court asserted: “As declaration was the main prayer of the respondent, it is a rule of practice that before such relief is granted there must be evidential basis to do so. Courts are very slow in granting declaratory prayer without any evidence and argument advanced. It is a rule of practice that 'the court does not make declarations of right either on admissions or in default of pleading' (Gan Boon Kyee v. Yap Hong Sin & Anor; Patten v. Burke Publishing Co).”
Subparagraph
(ii) In Zulkiflee bin Abdul Samad & Ors v Segi Objektif (M) Sdn Bhd [2016] 1 LNS 1488, the Court of Appeal observed: “In the instant case, the plaintiffs are seeking various declaratory reliefs. Declaratory relief is discretionary in nature. To succeed in declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs must come with clean hands as well as there should not be delay or collateral purpose. The findings of the learned judge on these issues were detrimental to the plaintiffs and would deprive them of the prayers they sought. It is well established that:
i
(i) declaratory prayers are discretionary in nature and granted sparingly and judicially with regard to all the circumstances of the case and that a court will not make a declaratory judgment where the question raised is purely academic or to cause delay;
Subparagraph
(ii) to qualify for declaration, the plaintiff must not only show it is not inequitable for the court to grant but also that it is not contrary to the accepted principle upon which the court exercises its discretion; 8
Subparagraph
(iii) declaratory prayers ought not be granted if all necessary and interested parties are not before the court. [See Low Kum Yoon v The Kim Huah [1979] 1 MLJ 83; Tengku Jaffar bin Tengku Ahmad v Karpal Singh [1993] 3 MLJ 156; Sabu Development Sdn Bhd v Kelik Anak Bayel [2007] 9 MLJ 475]. In Sakapp Commodities (M) Sdn Bhd v Cecil Abraham (Executor of the Estate of Loo Cheng Ghee) [1998] 4 CLJ 812; [1999] 2 AMR 1235].”
Subparagraph
(iii) In Ahmad Nadzrin bin Abd Halim & Anor v Allianz General Insurance Co (M) Bhd. [2015] 6 MLJ 223, the Court of Appeal observed: “It is trite that the declaratory relief are discretionary relief. If the court finds it will be unjust on the facts and circumstances to grant the declaration it may refuse the declaration. There must be material before the court to refuse the declaration.” [6] In essence, when it is related to conduct of solicitors against one another, it has to be initiated by a separate suit or through the procedure set out under the Legal Profession Act 1976. When a statute provides a specific mode to deal with issues concerning solicitors and their conduct, the court should refrain from exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to grant with declaratory orders. It is also obvious that those complaints and allegations, one against the other, are not brought by the parties involved in the instant suit. Such applications cannot properly be interlocutory matters between the substantive parties in the dispute. Allegations of the same also cannot form separate satellite litigation in the manner undertaken vide encl. 49. 9 [7] In consequence, we took the view it is a fit and proper case to set aside the order of the High Court dated 16-6-2016 and allow the appeal with no order as to costs. [8] Upon request by the appellants, we expunged the application as well as affidavits from the court file. [9] For reasons stated above, the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. Deposit to be refunded. We hereby ordered so. Dated: 9 August 2018 sgd (DATUK DR. HJ. HAMID SULTAN BIN ABU BACKER) Judge Court of Appeal Malaysia. Note: Grounds of judgment subject to correction of error and editorial adjustment, etc. 10 For Appellants: Mr. Oh Teik Keng Messrs. Oh Teik Keng & Partners Advocates & Solicitors No. 24-1, Jalan 2/96A, Taman Cheras Makmur 56100 Kuala Lumpur. [Ref: OTK/16DF7135/ChongKokHon/K/hana] For Respondent: Mr. T. Gunaseelan [with Andrew Davis and Zaitul Naziah Mohd Soib] Messrs. Andrew Davis & Co P-3-13, No. 60, Plaza Damas Jalan Sri Hartamas 1 (1/70A), Sri Hartamas 50480 Kuala Lumpur. [Ref: AD/502568/15/BPB/MCSB/L]
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.