NAZARIAH BINTI ABBAS v Majlis Peguam Malaysia (WA-22NCvC-654-11/2022)

1.

2.

BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA ... DEFENDANTS GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This Court heard two applications, namely –

the application by the Plaintiff (encl. 53) to, among others, strike out the 1st Defendant’s (‘D1’) and 3rd Defendant’s (‘D3’) Amended Defence re-dated 7.8.2023 and for declaratory orders concerning D1’s and D3’s existence pursuant to O. 18, r. 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘RC 2012’); and 18/12/2024 12:43:16

the application (encl. 34) by D1 and D3 to consolidate this suit with Civil Suit No. WA-B53F-37-11/2022 in the Sessions Court (‘Suit 37’) pursuant to O. 4, r. 1 and/ or O. 92, r. 4 RC 2012. [2] After having considered the cause papers and written submissions of the parties as well as the Plaintiff’s Preliminary Objection in encls. and 74 (‘PO’) and the oral submissions by the Plaintiff in person and Mr. Hoi Jack S’ng representing D1 and D3, I had, on 11.10.2024, dismissed the PO and the Plaintiff’s application in encl. 53 and allowed D1’s and D3’s application in encl. 34. [3] The Plaintiff is dissatisfied with my decision in dismissing her PO and application in encl. 53 and has appealed against the same. [4] These are my full grounds of decision. The Cause Papers [5] The cause papers are as follows:

Notice of Application (‘NoA’) dated 20.12.2023 (encl. 53);

the Plaintiff’s Affidavit In Support (‘AIS’) affirmed by herself on 20.12.2023 (encl. 54);

D1’s and D3’s Affidavit In Reply (‘AIR’) affirmed by D3’s Secretary, Anand Raj a/l R. Balasupramaniam, on 5.1.2024 (encl. 57); and

the Plaintiff’s AIR affirmed by herself on 17.1.2024 (encl. 58). Salient Facts [6] On 25.7.2015, pursuant to an Order of the Disciplinary Board (‘DB Order’), the Plaintiff was struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors (‘Roll’). [7] Following the DB Order, D1 –

issued a Resolution dated 16.1.2016 (‘Resolution’) appointing Rozana Meili binti Abdullah Kuan to intervene in the Plaintiff’s firm pursuant to sub-s 88(2) read together with the Schedule of the Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166] (‘LPA’);

issued a Notice under the Schedule of the LPA dated 18.2.2016 (‘Notice’);

advertised in various newspapers regarding the removal of the Plaintiff’s name from the Roll (‘Advertisement’); and

published Circular No. 095/2016 (‘Circular’) in D3’s website regarding the removal of the Plaintiff’s name from the Roll. [8] Through the Advertisement and the Circular, D1 gave notice to the public to make a claim to the Compensation Fund if they have suffered any loss due to the dishonesty of advocates and solicitors who were struck off the Roll in 2015, which includes the Plaintiff. [9] D3 made grants to various persons who claimed to have suffered losses due to the Plaintiff, after D1 had considered their applications, including the 2nd Defendant (‘D2’) in Suit 37 and the instant suit. [10] The Plaintiff has since applied to have her name restored to the Roll pursuant to s 107 LPA. However, D1 has objected to the same on various grounds, including the fact that the Plaintiff has yet to make restitution to the Compensation Fund. [11] The Plaintiff’s claim in the present suit is for alleged breach of duty of care, breach of statutory duty, abuse of powers, breach of trust, defamation, malicious falsehood and conspiracy. In order to appreciate the extent of the reliefs sought in paragraph 83 of the Amended Statement of Claim, the subparagraphs therein are quoted in full as follows: “… a) Satu deklarasi bahawa resolusi ‘Resolution Passed By the Bar Council’ – (‘intervention’) bertarikh 16.1.2016 yang diterbitkan oleh Defendan Pertama adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa, ultra vires dan bercanggahan dengan seksyen 88(1) LPA 1976 yang memperuntukan penerbitan satu ‘certificate’ (sijil) dan bukan resolusi dan rujukan sek 88(2) APU 1976 dalam resolusi oleh Defendan pertama adalah tidak sah dan ultra vires dan tidak mengikat Plaintif dibawah akta LPA 1976 kerana Defendan pertama tidak ada bidangkuasa mengeluarkan resolusi, b) Satu deklarasi bahawa tandatangan presiden (steven thiru) dan setiausaha (Karen cheah) adalah defektif dan Defendan ketiga tidak ada bidang kuasa (locus standi) menandatangani resolusi bertajuk ‘Resolution Passed By The Bar Council’ bertarikh 16-01-2016 oleh Defendan pertama yang melantik Rozana Meili Binti Abdullah itu maka resolusi itu adalah salah, tidak sah dan telah ultra vires peruntukan akta LPA 1976 c) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah Pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan bertindak ultra vires dalam APU 1976 terhadap Plaintif dengan menerbitkan resolusi bertarikh 16-01- 2016 kerana Defendan pertama yang tidak ada bidangkuasa dalam APU 1976, d) Satu deklarasi bahawa resolusi bertarikh 16-01-2016 yang mengunapakai seksyen 88(2) APU 1976 itu adalah ultra vires LPA 1976 dan adalah salah, tidak sah dan tidak berkuatkuasa kerana presiden (steven thiru) dan setiausaha (Karen cheah) Majlis Peguam iaitu Defendan ketiga tidak ada bidang kuasa menandatangani suatu resolusi ‘Resolution Passed By The Bar Council’ oleh Defendan pertama melantik Rozana Meili mengambil alih kawalan harta firma guaman Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co, dan Defendan ketiga adalah bertanggungjawab ‘vicarious liability’ terhadap tindakan salah presiden dan setiausaha, e) Satu deklarasi bahawa notice bertarikh 18-02-2016- bertajuk ‘NOTICE UNDER THE SCHEDULE TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1976’ yang dikeluarkan oleh Defendan pertama dan ditandatangani oleh setiausaha Defendan ketiga (Karen Cheah) adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa, ultra vires peruntukan LPA 1976 dan Defendan ketiga adalah bertanggungjawab ‘vicarious liability’ terhadap tindakan salah presiden dan setiausaha, f) Satu deklarasi bahawa iklan dalam akbar-akbar ‘The Star, Sin Chew Jit Poh, Berita Harian dan Malaysia Nanban’ bertarikh 16-04-2016 dan dalam laman web www.malaysianbar.org.my Defendan pertama adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa, ultra vires peruntukan dalam akta LPA 1976, kerana tidak ada ‘consequences of dishonesty dilakukan oleh Plaintif’, g) Satu deklarasi bahawa Borang A da Borang B dan ‘contact details form’ kesemuanya yang bertarikh 05- 04-2016 yang berstatus ‘pre mature’ yang diakui terima oleh Defendan pertama pada 07-04-2016 itu adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa dan ultra vires peruntukan LPA 1976 dan melanggar Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978 kerana dibuat sebelum ujud tempuh dua puluh satu (21) hari dari tarikh iklan pada 16-04- 2016 serta tidak berkuatkuasa dalam peruntukan undang-undang dan melanggar syarat Garis Panduan Untuk membuat Tuntutan Pampasan Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara yang dibuat oleh Defendan pertama sendiri maka tidak mengikat Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co, h) Satu deklarasi bahawa surat Akuan Bersumpah bertarikh 06-04-2015 Berstatus ‘pre mature’ daripada Defendan Kedua itu adalah tidak sah dan tidak berkuakuasa dalam peruntukan akta LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, i) Satu deklarasi bahawa pembayaran ‘award’ pampasan oleh Defendan pertama berjumlah RM15,040-97 dari Bar Council Compensation Fund yang tidak ujud dalam APU 1976 kepada Defendan kedua adalah salah, tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa, ultra vires dalam peruntukan seksyen 80(8) dan seksyen 80(7) (e) APU 1976 dimana award pemberian adalah daripada Defendan ketiga dan kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978 serta pecah terma-terma dan syarat dalam garis Panduan Untuk Membuat Tuntutan Pampasan maka dengan itu tidak mengikat Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co j) Satu deklarasi bahawa indemnity yang ditandatangani oleh Defendan kedua dalam surat bertarikh 21-03-2017 merujuk kepada ‘Letter of Acknowledgement cum Undertaking Claim against the Compensation Fund 2015: Nazariah Binti Abbas’ itu iaitu bayaran award pampasan berjumlah RM15,040-97 itu adalah tanggungjawab Defendan pertama dan Defendan kedua secara bersesama dan tanggungjawab gantirugi Defendan kedua kepada Defendan pertama antara mereka bersesama maka tidak mengikat diri Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co kerana subrogasi adalah kepada Defendan ketiga dalam seksyen 80(10) APU 1976, k) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory terhadap Plaintif dan pecah amanah dalam seksyen 80 (3) LPA 1976 dalam pembayaran amaun RM15,040-97 secara tidak sah dan salah ultra vires wang pampasan peguambela dan peguamcara dalam akta LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, k A) satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires seksyen 80(7) (e) iaitu kesemua wang dalam kumpulan wang pampasan hendaklah digunakan untuk membayar apa-apa pemberian oleh Defendan ketiga dalam seksyen 80(8) APU 1976 dan bukan dalam bidangkuasa Defendan pertama, k B) satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires seksyen 80(8) APU 1976 bahawa pemberian (grant) adalah dalam bidangkuasa Defendan ketiga bukan Defendan pertama maka surat award bertarikh 08-03-2017 daripada Defendan pertama kepada Defendan kedua adalah tidak mengikat Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co. k C) satu deklarasi bahawa restitusi adalah tidak terpakai dan mengikat Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co dimana itu adalah tanggungjawab antara Defendan pertama dan Defendan kedua sesame mereka kerana Defendan pertama telah ultra vires peruntukan APU 1976. l) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory terhadap Plaintif dalam akta LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, m) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah melanggar hak-hak dan Perlembagaan Plaintif dalam Artikel 5(1) yang menjamin hak kehidupan dan hak persendirian Plaintif menjalani kehidupan dan kebebasan mencari mata pencarian seperti yang dibenarkan dalam perundangan. (guarantee the Plaintiff’s life and personal liberty, save for encroachments provided by law). n) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah melanggar hak-hak Perlembagaan Plaintif dalam Artikel 8(1) yang menjamin hak kehidupan dan hak persendirian Plaintif menjalani kehidupan dan kebebasan mencari mata pencarian seperti yang dibenarkan dalam perundangan. (guarantee the Plaintiff's life and personal liberty, save for encroachments provided by law). o) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory terhadap hak Perlembagaan Plaintif dalam Artikel 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan p) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan ketiga telah Pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan melanggar peruntukan Kedaulatan undang-undang (Rules of Law) dan dalam Rules of Natural Justice terhadap diri Plaintif, q) Satu deklarasi bahawa resolusi ‘Resolution Passed By The Bar Council’ bertarikh 16-01-2016 yang diterbitkan oleh Defendan Pertama adalah salah, tidak sah defektif ultra vires dan bercanggahan dengan seksyen 88(1) APU 1976 yang memperuntukan penerbitan satu ‘certificate’ (sijil) dan bukan resolusi dan Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory terhadap Plaintif, q. A Satu deklarasi bahawa resolusi ‘Resolution Passed By The Bar Council’ bertarikh 16-01-2016 yang diterbitkan oleh Defendan Pertama adalah salah, tidak sah, defektif dan ultra vires APU 1976 dan Defendan ketiga bertanggungjawab ‘vicarious liability’ kerana resolusi ditandatangani secara salah dan tidak sah oleh presiden dan setiausaha Defendan ketiga yang tidak ada bidangkuasa dalam APU 1976. r) Satu deklarasi bahawa Borang A dan B dan ‘contact details form’ dari Defendan Kedua bertarikh 05-04-2016 adalah salah, tidak sah dan ultra vires APU 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978 kerana adalah berstatus ‘pre mature’ sebelum ujud tempuh dua puluh satu (21) hari seperti garis panduan dalam membuat tuntutan pampasan, s) Satu deklarasi bahawa penerimaan Borang A & Borang B yang bertarikh 05-04-2016 oleh Defendan Pertama dengan akuan cop terima pada 07-04-2016 adalah salah, tidak sah dan ultra vires dalam LPA 1976 dan melanggar syarat-syarat dalam Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978 kerana adalah berstatus ‘pre mature’ sebelum ujud tempuh dua puluh satu (21) hari daripada tarikh iklan 16-04-2016 seperti yang termaktub dalam garis panduan dalam membuat tuntutan pampasan Defendan pertama sendiri dan Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory terhadap Plaintif, t) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara dalam pembayaran secara salah dan tidak sah award pampasan sebanyak RM15,040-97 kepada Defendan Kedua dengan surat bertarikh 08-03-2017, u) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama telah ultra vires dan telah Pecah amanah seksyen 80 (3) LPA 1976 dalam pembayaran secara salah dan tidak sah award pampasan sebanyak RM15,040-97 dalam ‘Bar Council Compensation Fund’ kepada Defendan Kedua dengan surat bertarikh 08-03-2017, v) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama dan Defendan Kedua adalah bertanggungjawab sesama mereka atas segala pembayaran semula wang award pampasan dan restitusi kepada tabung wang pampasan peguambela dan peguamcara dan bukan Plaintif, w) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan Pertama tidak ada bidangkuasa dan otoriti menghukum restitusi terhadap Plaintif dalam LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, x) Satu deklarasi bahawa iklan bertarikh 16-04-2016 yang diterbit dalam akbar-akbar ‘The Star Sin Chew Jit Poh, Berita Harian dan Malaysia Nanban’ itu adalah salah dan ultra vires LPA 1976 dan tidak sah kerana DC/12/7916 bukan berkenaan firma Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co, y) Satu deklarasi bahawa notis dalam laman web Defendan ketiga pada 18-04-2016 yang menyeru permohonan tuntutan pampasan peguambela dan peguamcara terhadap Plaintif adalah pecah tanggungjawab statutory Defendan Pertama dan Defendan ketiga yang mana adalah salah, tidak sah dan ultra vires melanggar peruntukan LPA 1976 dan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, z) Satu deklarasi untuk pembatalan keseluruhan pembayaran ‘restitution’ terhadap Plaintif yang dikenakan oleh Defendan Pertama ke atas award amaun pampasan berjumlah RM15,040-97 dalam Bar Council Compensation Fund yang tidak ujud dalam APU 1976 sebagai salah, tidak sah, terbatal void ab initio dan tidak berkuatkuasa di bawah nama ‘Compensation Fund 2015: Nazariah Binti Abbas’, aa) Satu deklarasi untuk pembatalan keseluruhan pembayaran ‘restitution’ yang dikenakan ke atas Plaintif oleh Defendan Pertama bagi keseluruhan amaun tuntutan tidak sah, tidak berkuatkuasa, void ab initio yang meliputi amaun tuntutan pampasan berjumlah RM65,857-60 dalam Borang A dan Borang B daripada Defendan kedua yang bertarikh 05-04-2016 yang berstatus ‘pre mature’ seperti termaktub dalam garis panduan membuat tuntutan pampasan dibawah peruntukan Kaedah-kaedah Kumpulan Wang Pampasan Peguambela dan Peguamcara 1978, aa. A) Satu deklarasi bahawa ‘Bar Council Compensation Fund’ tidak ujud dalam APU 1976 dan Defendan pertama telah ultra vires dan melanggar peruntukan undang-undang dalam APU 1976. aa. B) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires dalam seksyen 80(1) APU 1976 bahawa tanggungjawab mentadbir Kumpulan Wang pampasan adalah bidangkuasa Defendan ketiga. aa. C) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires dalam seksyen 80(2) APU 1976 wang caruman para peguam adalah dibayar kedalam akaun Defendan ketiga dan bukan untuk dibayar dalam akaun Defendan pertama dalam Bar Council Compensation Fund yang tidak ujud dalam APU 1976. aa D) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires dalam Seksyen 80(7) (e) APU 1976 iaitu semua wang daripada Kumpulan Wang hendaklah digunakan untuk membayar apa-apa pemberian yang dibuat oleh Defendan ketiga (Badan Peguam) aa E) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires dalam Seksyen 80(8) APU 1976 bahawa Defendan ketiga (Badan Peguam) yang boleh membuat pemberian daripada Kumpulan Wang dan bukan dalam Bar Council Compensation Fund yang tidak ujud dalam APU 1976 maka surat bertarikh 08-03-2017 memberi awad pampasan kepada Defendan kedua adalah salah tidak sah dan tidak berkuatkuasa terhadap Plaintif dan Tetuan Nazariah Abbas & Co aa F) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires seksyen 80(10) dimana hanya Defendan ketiga yang berhak mendapat hak subrogasi dan bukan Defendan pertama dalam surat bertarikh 21-03-2017 daripada Defendan kedua. aa G) Satu deklarasi bahawa Defendan pertama telah pecah tanggungjawab statutory dan ultra vires dengan mencipta Bar Council Compensation Fund yang tidak ujud dalam APU 1976, bb) Gantirugi Am cc) Gantirugi khas dd) Gantirugi fitnah libel dan ‘malicious falsehood’, ee) Gantirugi atas tort konspirasi (Damages for Tort of Conspiracy) ff) Gantirugi atas tort pecah tanggungjawab statutory (Damages for the Tort of Breach of Statutory Duty) gg) Gantirugi atas tort salahguna kuasa (Damages for Tort of abuse of powers) hh) Gantirugi punitive ii) Gantirugi teladan, …”. [12] In D1’s and D3’s Amended Defence, they have pleaded, amongst others, that –

D1 and D3 do not owe the Plaintiff any duty of care and even if they do, there is no breach of such duty;

D1 and D3 do not owe the Plaintiff any statutory duty and even if they do, there is no breach of the same;

D1 and D3 have acted within their powers as conferred by the

there is no trustee-beneficiary relationship to begin with, and even if there is, there is no breach of this relationship;

the publishing of any alleged defamatory remarks is justified and/ or protected by qualified privilege; and

there was no conspiracy. The PO [13] The Plaintiff gave notice of her PO in respect of the NoA in encl. vide encl. 73, which was filed on 7.10.2024. [14] The next day, the Plaintiff gave notice vide encl. 74 that the same PO also applies to her application in encl. 53. [15] The grounds of the PO as stated in encl. 73 are as follows:

The PO is in respect of a public interest litigation taken for the benefit of the public at large related to the correct interpretation of sub-s 76(1) LPA as passed by the Parliament.

The challenge relates to the status of D1 when the names of its Chairman, Secretary and members and the members of the State Bar Committees and of the Secretaries appointed by them, including that of any persons appointed to fill any vacancies, were not published in the Gazette in the year 2021, 2022 and 2023 (‘Said Non-Publication’) as stipulated in the mandatory provision under sub-s 76 (1) LPA.

Until an Extraordinary General Meeting (‘EGM’) under s 65 LPA is convened for ratification of the failure to comply with sub-s 76(1) LPA, D1 continues to be illegally constituted under s 52 LPA until to date, deeming D1 as not being established as the central council of the Malaysian Bar under s 47 LPA. Due to these failures by D1, the responsibility to convene the EGM falls on the members of the Malaysian Bar indicated as follows:

sub-s 65(2) LPA states that any 150 members of the Malaysian Bar may, at any time, requisition an EGM by written notice in that behalf signed by them and served on the President, Vice-President or the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar, and the Bar Council shall convene an EGM to be held within 30 days of such service;

(ii) sub-s 65(3) LPA states that the written notice shall specify the object or objects of the proposed EGM; and

(iii) sub-s 65(4) states that in the event the Bar Council fails to convene an EGM in accordance with the requisition within 30 days of the service of such requisition, the requisitioning members may convene the EGM within 60 days of such service.

Until to date, no EGM was convened by D1 for ratification of the Said Non-Publication.

D1 was not legally constituted under s 52 LPA since the year 2021, 2022 and 2023 for failure to comply with sub-s 76(1) LPA which require the mandatory publication in the Gazette on a yearly basis after the completion of the AGM of the Malaysian Bar on the 1st of April every year as stipulated in s 64 LPA.

The PO arising from the failure to be gazetted resulted in the following questions of law:

whether D1 had contravened sub-s 76 (1) LPA which is an Act of Parliament and categorised as a Federal law in

(ii) whether D1 had contravened s 48 LPA on the period of holding office which stipulates that every member of the Bar Council shall hold office for one year only;

(iii) whether D1 had contravened sub-s 54(2) and s 108 of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 [Act 388] that, in the computation of time where no time is prescribed within which anything shall be done, that thing shall be done with all convenient speed when D1 had failed to comply with the publication in the Gazette as stipulated under sub-s 76(1)

(iv) whether D1 was illegally constituted under s 52 LPA which states that the incoming Bar Council shall take office on the conclusion of the annual general meeting (‘AGM’) and shall hold office until the conclusion of the AGM in the following year;

whether the composition of D1 was legally established as a central council of the Malaysian Bar under sub-s 47(1)

(vi) whether the compulsory publication in the Gazette under sub-s 76(1) LPA is mandatory since sub-s 76(2) stipulates that confidentiality of deliberations at all meetings and proceedings shall be maintained; and

(vii) whether the appointment of the officers consisting of the President, Vice President and Secretary of the Bar under s 54 LPA would compulsory to be published in the Gazette as stipulated in sub-s 76(1) LPA bearing in mind that the annual election of the 12 members of the Bar Council referred to in paragraph 47(2)(c) LPA shall be done by postal ballots. D1’s and D3’s Solicitors

The solicitors appearing on behalf of D1 and D3 in this suit have no legal authority to appear before the Court as D1 had failed to comply with the mandatory provision under sub-s 76(1) LPA. This failure means that a provision of a Federal law i.e. the LPA as defined under s 3 Act 388 has been contravened and resulted in D1 being not legally constituted under s 52 LPA in the year 2021, 2022 and 2023.

It is trite law that a challenge to the authority of the solicitors can be made at any point in time and at any stage of the proceedings (see Simmons v. Liberal Opinion Ltd. [1911] 1 KB 966, William Jacks & Co (M) Sdn Bhd v. Chemquip (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor [1991] 1 MLRA and Khoo Leong Kee v. L.Y Swee & Co Ltd [1968] 1 MLRH 67). Therefore, in view of D1 not being legally constituted under s 52 LPA and that no EGM of the Malaysian Bar under s 65 LPA was convened for ratification of the Said Non-Publication, D1 had no legal capacity to appoint the solicitors from Messrs. Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill (‘Said Firm’) in this suit.

The solicitors for D1 and D3 had deceived, and is still continuously deceiving, the Court concerning D1’s status as not being legally constituted and they have breached rule 17 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (‘1978 Rules’) which states that an advocate and solicitor shall not practice any deception on the Court.

The “secret” regarding the Said Non-Publication was out in the open when the Plaintiff, vide the letter dated 2.10.2023, had written to the Said Firm and D1’s Chief Executive Officer asking for copies of the Gazette pertaining to the designation of one Shahareen Begum binti Abdul Subhan (‘Shahareen’) in the Kuala Lumpur Originating Summons No.: WA-17D-19-07/2021 filed for the application for reinstatement on the Roll by the Plaintiff under sub-s 107(3) LPA. Shahareen had affirmed two affidavits in two different capacities as representing D1’s Secretary vide the affidavit dated 19.11.2021 and as D3’s Secretary in another affidavit dated 11.3.2022.

The publication in the Gazettes on the same date of 3.10.2023 was contrary to sub-s 76(1) LPA, which does not cater for retrospective publication. As no computation of time is prescribed in sub-s 76(1) LPA, sub-s 54(2) and s 108 Act 388 applies and the said publication shall be done with all convenient speed.

The Plaintiff had served the notice under O. 24, r. 10 RC 2012, which was filed on 2.10.2024, for inspection of the warrant to act from D1 and D3 but until to date, the Said Firm had failed to respond. [16] I will deal firstly with the Plaintiff’s contentions that the Amended Defence is void ab initio as D1 and D3 have no locus standi to file the pleading in the first place. The learned counsel for D1 and D3 have neatly summarised and tabulated the Plaintiff’s arguments as follows (see encl. 72):

D1 is not established pursuant to sub-s 47(1) LPA due to the late publication of the Gazette, which is not in compliance with sub-s 76(1) LPA;

when there is no time prescribed under sub-s 76(1) LPA, sub-s 54(2) and s 108 of Act 388 are applicable so that thing shall be done with all convenient speed and as often as the prescribed occasion arises (see Keng Kien Hock v. Timbalan Menteri

the names of the elected members of D1 for the year 2021, 2022 and 2023 were gazetted only on 3.10.2023 and hence, it is an afterthought. The names of the elected members should have been gazetted after the conclusion of the AGM in the particular year;

the importance of the publication in the Gazette under sub-s 76(1) LPA is to ensure the public at large will be notified of the elected members since their appointment were done in confidentiality of deliberation pursuant to sub-s 76(2) LPA;

the words “shall be published in the Gazette” in s 76(1) LPA connote a mandatory obligation to comply with what is required to be done (see Azman Jufri v Medtronic Astralasia Pty Limited [2015] 4 MLRA 312). Sub-s 76(1) LPA is a mandatory obligation, which is the legal notice for D1 to be constituted under s 52 LPA, and it does not have retrospective effect; and

D1 can only act as the central council of D3 if all the legal provisions of the LPA or the formation constitution of D1 are adhered to and fulfilled. As D1 is not legally constituted, D1 cannot undertake its power pursuant to s 57(j) LPA to defend D3. [17] The learned counsel for D1 and D3 also informed the Court that the Plaintiff had filed similar striking out applications in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court Civil Suit No.: WA-B53F-43-12/2022 (Suit 43) and in Suit 37 and these applications were dismissed on 4.3.2024. [18] After having considered the respective submissions of the parties, I was persuaded by D1’s and D3’s submissions that –

D1 and D3 are entities brought into existence by ss 47 and 41 of the LPA, respectively, which read as follows: “Establishment of Bar Council

(1) For the proper management of the affairs of the Malaysian Bar and for the proper performance of its functions under this Act there shall be a Council to be known as the Bar Council.

The Bar Council shall consist of the following:

the immediate past President and Vice-President of the Malaysian Bar;

the chairman of each State Bar Committee and the members elected to represent each State Bar Committee pursuant to subsection 70(7);

members elected pursuant to section 50.” “Establishment of Malaysian Bar

(1) There is established a body corporate to be called the “Malaysian Bar”.

The Malaysian Bar shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, and with power subject to this Act to sue and be sued in its corporate name and to acquire and dispose of property both movable and immovable and to do and to perform such other acts as bodies corporate may by law perform.”.

D1’s and D3’s existence as legal entities with the power to defend themselves, if sued, are not dependent on the publications in the Gazette pursuant to sub-s 76(1) LPA. Section 76 LPA provides as follows: “Names of members of the Bar Council, etc., to be published and confidentiality of deliberations

(1) The names of the members of the Bar Council and of the Secretary of the Malaysian Bar and of the Chairman and members of the State Bar Committees and of the Secretaries appointed by them including that of any persons appointed to fill any vacancies shall be published in the Gazette.

Except and in so far as may be necessary for the purpose of publishing a report or giving effect to any resolution passed or decision taken, confidentiality of deliberations at all meetings, proceedings or inquiries of the Board, the Bar Council, the State Bar Committee, the Disciplinary Board and the Disciplinary Committee and in respect of all documents pertaining to the deliberative process shall be maintained by the members of the Board, the Bar Council, the State Bar Committee, the Disciplinary Board and the Disciplinary Committee and by their staff.

No member of the Board, the Bar Council, the State Bar Committee, the Disciplinary Board, the Disciplinary Committee and their staff who are involved in any deliberations referred to in subsection (2) shall be compelled to disclose to any court any information relating to such deliberations unless the court considers such disclosure essential in the interest of justice.”. It is clear from a plain reading of sub-s 76(1) LPA that there is no prescribed time within which the publication in the Gazette must be done and that the appointments of the persons stated only become effective upon the publication in the Gazette;

the LPA does not provide that D1’s elected members will only take office upon publication of their names in the Gazette. This can be contrasted with –

an order made by the Attorney General to give effect to Part IIA of the LPA (see s 28D LPA);

(ii) Rules made under the LPA to come into the operation upon the publication in the Gazette (see sub-ss 77(2), 78(4), 78A(4), 79(7) and 103F(2) LPA);

(iii) a scheme approved by the Yang di-Pertua Negeri having full force and effect on the date notice of the same is published in the Gazette [see sub-s 10(5) of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance (Sabah Cap. 141)];

(iv) a structure plan coming into effect on the date a public notice is published in the Gazette (see sub-s 9(2) of the Federal Territory (Planning) Act 1982 [Act 267]); and

the forfeiture of land taking effect upon the publication of the notification of the forfeiture in the Gazette (see sub-s 130(1) of the National Land Code 2020 [Act 828]); Hence, there is no basis for the Plaintiff to contend that there is no central council to run D1 in carrying out the objects and affairs of D3. D1’s members who are elected under ss 49 - 51 LPA take office, pursuant to s 52 LPA, on the conclusion of the AGM and hold office until the conclusion of the AGM in the following year; and

sub-ss 76(2) and (3) LPA are irrelevant. [19] Moving on to the next contention by the Plaintiff, she submitted that the failure to gazette the names of D1’s elected members as soon as the conclusion of the AGM amounts to an illegality. The Court can take judicial notice of the illegality even when it is raised in the final speech in reply (see Khem Singh v Anokh Singh [1993] MLJ 228). In view of the illegality, the Amended Defence should be struck out. [20] I rejected the Plaintiff’s submission as above said as it is premised on the same argument as that put forth on the issue of locus standi, which have been addressed earlier. [21] The Plaintiff further contended that her assertions were not rebutted by D1 and D3. It is settled law in evaluating evidence that where one party makes a positive assertion upon a material issue, the failure by the opponent to contradict is usually treated as an admission (see Ng Hee Thong v Public Bank Bhd [1995] 1 MLJ 281). [22] I have perused D1’s and D3’s AIR and I find that, contrary to the Plaintiff’s submission, D1 and D3 have challenged or contradicted the matters which were raised by the Plaintiff in the AIS. In any event, the Plaintiff’s affirmations in the AIS are not positive assertions upon the issue at hand, namely whether D1’s and D3’s Amended Defence is obviously unsustainable and should be struck out under all or any of the limbs pursuant to O. 18, r. 19(1) RC 2012. [23] In addition, I find that the Plaintiff’s submission that the counsels who represented D1 and D3 at the hearing have no legal authority to appear before this Court is totally devoid of any merit. [24] The Plaintiff’s PO was therefore dismissed in so far as they apply to encls. 34 and 53. The Plaintiff’s Striking Out Application [25] The Plaintiff relied on all four limbs of O. 18, r. 19(1) RC 2012. However, in so far as limbs (b), (c) and (d) of that provision is concerned, the Plaintiff’s averments in the AIS do not relate to the facts which establish that D1’s and D3’s Amended Defence is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court. [26] Mr. JS Hoi rightfully argued for D1 and D3 that –

the Plaintiff's submissions for the NoA in encl. 53 are the same as for the PO with a few additional points which do not relate to proving the elements or requirements under all or any of the limbs under O. 18, r. 19(1) RC 2012;

the Plaintiff’s premise for striking out D1’s and D3’s Amended Defence is not on the basis that D1 and D3 have failed to raise a triable issue, but rather on the basis of the following purported questions, giving rise to illegality:

D1 and D3 have no locus standi due to the alleged failure to comply with sub-s 76(1) LPA 1976; and

(ii) D1 and D3 were “non-existent” due to alleged failure to comply with sub-s 76(1) LPA 1976. [27] O. 18, r. 19(2) RC 2012 provides that no evidence shall be admissible on an application under O. 18, r. 19(1)(a). This means that limb (a) must be considered without having regard to the AIS and AIR (see Amanah Raya Bhd v. Ong Chin Hoo [2019] 6 CLJ 41). The defences raised by D1 and D3 in the Amended Defence have been alluded to in paragraph 12 above. [28] After having scrutinised the Amended Defence, I am unable to say that it discloses no reasonable defence. What D1 and D3 have raised are triable issues of fact which can only be fairly resolved by evidence viva voce at a trial and not merely by affidavit evidence (see New Straits Times (Malaysia) Bhd v Kumpulan Kertas Niaga Sdn Bhd & Anor [1985] 1 MLJ 226). [29] The Plaintiff made no attempt to show how the Amended Defence is without merit and her submissions do not address the criteria for which the Amended Defence may be struck out under any of the limbs of O. 18, r. 19(1) RC 2012 (see the numerous case authorities on the applicable legal principles, for example, Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36, Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v. Tay Young Huat & Ors [1999] 2 CLJ 886, Sivakumar Varatharaju Naidu v. Ganesan Retanam [2010] 9 CLJ 825, Harapan Permai Sdn Bhd v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd [2011] 1 CLJ 285 and Seruan Gemilang Makmur Sdn Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur & Anor [2016] 2 MLRA 263). [30] In the circumstances, the Plaintiff’s application was doomed from the start and the only appropriate order to be made is to dismiss the same. [31] With regards to costs, Mr. JS Hoi proposed costs of RM3,000.00 for encl. 53 to be paid forthwith as the Plaintiff has taken an unnecessary and improper action in filing encl. 53, which is an utterly frivolous and vexatious application (see Ko Ko Ma Pony Horse Centre v Rasa Sayang Beach Hotels (PG) Bhd [1990] 1 MLJ 304 and Dato' Abdullah Hishan Bin Haji Mohd Hashim v Sharma Kumari Shukla (No 2) [1999] 6 MLJ 584). The same points of arguments were raised by the Plaintiff in similar applications in the Sessions Court and these were dismissed with costs of RM1,000.00. [32] The Plaintiff sought nominal costs of RM300.00 as she cannot afford to pay more than that. Her intention in filing the application is in the public interest as it involves matters of public policy and cogent questions of law. [33] In the exercise of my discretion, I ordered costs of RM3,000.00 to be paid by the Plaintiff to D1 and D3 within 14 days from the date of decision. Dated: 16 December 2024 (ALIZA SULAIMAN) Judge High Court in Malaya (NCvC2) Kuala Lumpur Solicitors: For the 1st and 3rd Defendants: Hoi Jack S’ng (Aida Faralyana Binti Azlan with him) Messrs. Lee Hishammuddin Allen & Gledhill Advocates & Solicitors Aras 6, Menara 1 Dutamas Solaris Dutamas No. 1, Jalan Dutamas 1 50480 Kuala Lumpur For the 2nd Defendant: Chong Jia Wen Messrs. WK Wong & Co. Advocates & Solicitors K-3A-8, 2, Jalan Solaris Solaris Mont Kiara 50480 Kuala Lumpur [The Plaintiff appeared in person]