Back
2025 MarsdenLR 6206
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ONG KEH KEONG – Appellant
Versus
TULASI AYAOO; MAJLIS PEGUAM (INTERVENER) (ENCL 1) – Respondent
[Beginner Proposal No: WA-17D-23-07/2023]
The court upheld the disciplinary board's decision, confirming the appellant's misconduct in treating a pupil as an employee and the appropriateness of the imposed fine.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 103D - Disciplinary proceedings - The appellant sought to set aside a disciplinary order imposing a fine of RM5,000.00 for misconduct in treating a pupil as an employee and pursuing compensation - The court found no error in the disciplinary board's findings or the imposed penalty. (Paras 1-45)
(B) Natural Justice - The court ruled that there was no breach of natural justice as the appellant failed to raise issues of bias during the disciplinary hearing and was aware of the grounds for the decision. (Paras 24-44)
(C) Procedural Compliance - The court held that the late submission of the disciplinary committee report did not invalidate the disciplinary board's order. (Paras 15-20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a lawyer, was fined by the Disciplinary Board for misconduct related to a pupil's termination of pupillage and compensation claims. The pupil had quit abruptly, leading to a complaint against the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the disciplinary board's findings, confirming the appellant's misconduct and the appropriateness of the fine imposed.
Issues: The main issues included whether there was an error in law or fact by the disciplinary board, procedural non-compliance, breach of natural justice, and whether the punishment was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the disciplinary board acted within its authority, and the findings were supported by evidence, emphasizing the importance of professional conduct standards.
Result: The appellant's originating motion was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The appellant had on 14 July 2023 filed an application by way of Originating Motion (OM) (Enel. 1) seeking inter alia, the following orders:
a) Suatu perintah untuk mengenepikan atau membatalkan keseluruhan Perintah bertarikh 24 Jun 2023 yang dikeluarkan oleh Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam ("Disciplinary Board") ("DB") di bawah s 103D Akta Profesion Perundangan 1976 ("Perintah Tersebut") yang telah menghukum Perayu dengan denda sebanyak RM5,000.00 yang perlu dibayar dalam masa 1 bulan daripada tarikh Perintah Tersebut;
b) Suatu perintah untuk menggantung kesemua bentuk perlaksanaan Perintah Tersebut sehingga keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, dalam permohonan ini diberikan;
c) Suatu perintah supaya DB dan/atau Majlis Peguam samada dengan sendirinya atau melalui agen, wakil atau melalui pengkhidmat atau sebaliknya, tidak menerbitkan, mempamerkan, mengedarkan atau mencetak dalam apa jua cara dan bentuk, kesan atau hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas Perayu dalam Perintah Tersebut sehingga keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, dalam permohonan ini diberikan;
d) Kos; dan
e) Lain-lain relief atau perintah yang difikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.
[2] In gist, the appellant filed the OM to set aside the Order of the Disciplinary Board (DB) under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) dated 24 June 2023 via Complaint No. DC/18/0102 which imposed a fine of RM5,000.00 on the appellant (DB Order).
[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the appellant's OM (Enel. 1). This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.
Salient Facts
[4] The salient facts of this case, gathered from the cause papers and submissions of the parties, are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:
4.1 In early January 2018, the appellant's law firm advertised on the Bar Council website, among other things, that there was a vacancy for students/pupils to undergo chambering.
4.2 On 3 January 2018, the respondent applied for a chambering position by sending her application via email to the appellant's firm.
4.3 Thereafter, the appellant called the respondent for an interview and after a written and oral question-and-answer interview session, on 15 January 2018, the appellant issued a Letter of Offer, offering the respondent a chambering position in the appellant's law firm. The said letter was then executed by the respondent as an acceptance of the offer.
4.4 On 15 January 2018, the respondent commenced her appointment as a chambering student at the appellant's law firm office until 17 January 2018.
4.5 On 18 January 2018, the respondent suddenly did not turn up at the appellant's law firm and the respondent was absent on 19 January 2018.
4.6 On 19 January 2018, the respondent sent WhatsApp messages to the appellant indicating the respondent's intention to quit and terminate her pupillage.
4.7 The appellant then replied stating that pursuant to the Letter of Offer, the respondent has to pay 2 months allowance in the sum of RM3,600.00 as compensation if she wishes to resign immediately.
4.8 The respondent requested for the 2 monthly allowance to be paid in 2 installments on 10 February 2018 and 10 March 2018 respectively. The appellant allowed the request.
4.9 However, the respondent defaulted in the instalment payment. On 15 February 2018, the appellant issued a letter of demand to the respondent via email demanding payment of RM3,600.00.
4.10 On 21 February 2018, the respondent requested for an extension of time to make the payment of RM3,600.00. The appellant allowed the respondent to pay the said sum plus an additional RM50.00 as the legal cost for the letter of demand in 4 instalments, with the first instalment of RM1,000.00 to be paid by 22 February 2018.
4.11 On 27 February 2018, the respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant with the DB.
4.12 In brief, the respondent complained that the appellant should not claim for compensation of 2 months arising from her termination of the Lett
