Back
2025 MarsdenLR 4886
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
HOW CHEE HONG – Appellant
Versus
LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA & PEGUAMCARA & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-17D-11-03/2024]
A party must exhaust internal mechanisms provided by law before seeking judicial intervention in disciplinary proceedings, particularly regarding claims of bias.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Sections 103EA(2) and (3) - Disciplinary Committee - Plaintiff filed an Amended Originating Summons seeking declaratory orders regarding bias and the validity of the Disciplinary Committee's composition and decisions, claiming violations of natural justice and fundamental rights. (Paras 1.1, 1.2, 34, 50)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that objections to the composition of the Disciplinary Committee must be addressed internally before judicial review, affirming that the Plaintiff's Amended OS was premature. (Paras 36, 50, 74)
(C) Bias - Allegations of bias against the Disciplinary Committee were found to lack merit, as the Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of bias and had opportunities to present his case. (Paras 70, 72)
(D) Procedural Compliance - The court highlighted the necessity for the Plaintiff to exhaust internal mechanisms under the LPA prior to court intervention. (Paras 40, 46) (E) Result - The Amended OS was dismissed with costs. (Para 75)
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiff filed an Amended Originating Summons (OS) (Enel. 15) dated 26 March 2024 to seek the following reliefs:
1.1 A declaratory order that it is inappropriate for the 2nd, 5th, and 6th Defendants to be new members of the Disciplinary Committee (DC) No DC/15/0424 (2nd DC) to adjudicate the issue of their own bias and/or prejudice, and instead, the First Defendant should and has an obligation to make such a determination.
1.2 A declaratory order that the Plaintiffs fundamental rights were violated by the actions of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants (1st DC) as former members of the Disciplinary Committee Complaint No DC/15/0424) and/or the 2nd Defendant as one of the new members of the said New Disciplinary Committee (2nd DC) which is found to be biased and/or prejudiced and/or appears to be such against the Plaintiff, and therefore, should be dissolved forthwith.
1.3 A declaratory order that all orders, decisions, instructions and/or judgments given and/or issued by the 1st DC and/or the 2nd DC to date are of no effect, invalid and annulled because they are tainted by the 1st DC's bias and/or appearance such against the Plaintiff.
1.4 A declaratory order that the 1st Defendant appoints new committee members to replace the 1st DC and/or the 2nd DC with immediate effect to hear the complaint fairly and impartially "de novo".
1.5 A declaratory Order that within one month from the date of this order and/or any other reasonable period be given to the Plaintiff to appoint counsel and or any advisor to represent him during the rehearing of disciplinary proceedings.
[2] In essence, Plaintiff filed the Amended OS for orders, amongst others, a declaration that the members of the DC mentioned above are or are seen to be biased and prejudiced against Plaintiff and that the Committee be dissolved for the said reason.
[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the Plaintiff's Amended OS (Enel. 15) and my full grounds now follow.
Background Facts
[4] On 22 December 2011, Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd and Newlake Development Sdn, Bhd had entered into a Sales and Purchase Agreement for a plot of land held under the Grant 45803, Lot 3910 in Kuala Lumpur (the SPA);
[5] Newlake Development Sdn, Bhd had paid RM9,056,124.00 to Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd through Messrs Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah ("KJQA"). The sum was released to Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd by KJQA as per the clause in the SPA. KJQA was never appointed as a stakeholder by Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd.
[6] On 9 June 2014, Newlake Development Sdn Bhd filed a Civil Suit in the Kuala Lumpur High Court, Suit No 22NCVC-279-06/2014 [Newlake Development Sdn Bhd v. Zenith Delight Sdn Bhd & Ors [2015] MLRHU 1412] against the Plaintiff and his firm. On 15 January 2021, the Kuala Lumpur Court dismissed the claim;
[7] Subsequently, Newlake Development Sdn Bhd made a police report against the Plaintiff regarding the above-mentioned transaction. Following the said report, the Plaintiff was charged in the Kuala Lumpur High Court Criminal Case No.: 62K-013-03/2016. The Sessions Court had discharged and acquitted the Plaintiff from the said charge. The Kuala Lumpur High Court affirmed the said decision. The Prosecution filed an Appeal to the Court of Appeal and later withdrew their Appeal;
[8] Newlake Development Sdn Bhd through Dato Azizi bin Yom Ahmad (the Complainant) had also filed a Complaint against the Plaintiff alleging among others, fraud and misrepresentation to the 1st Defendant on 12 May 2015 through a letter dated 30 April 2015. A Disciplinary Committee (1st DC) was appointed to investigate the Complaint made;
[9] On 20 April 2017, the Complainant made an application to the 1st DC under s 103B of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) for production of the following documents by the Respondent for the inspection by the 1st DC:
"Payment vouchers, invoices, cheques, bills and bank statements of the Respondent and/or his legal firm for the period between 27 December 2010 and 6 June 20
