Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1634
HIGH COURT SABAH & SARAWAK KUCHING
IN RE: MALIK IMTIAZ AHMED GHULAM SARWA
[Application For Ad Hoc Licence To Practise No: KCH-17D-3/11-2019]
The necessity of specialized legal expertise in matters of public interest justifies granting ad hoc licenses to practitioners.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks an ad hoc license to practice under ss 4 and 10 (c) of the Sarawak Advocates Ordinance 1953 ('SAO 1953'). The Court finds that the procedural requirements have been fulfilled for the petitioner to represent PETRONAS in complex legal disputes of public interest. The Court highlights the need for expertise in constitutional and administrative law in the context of significant public concern involving state sales tax on petroleum products. The decision is in favor of the petitioner to practice ad hoc.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for ad hoc license under sarawak advocates ordinance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's qualifications and relevance to complex legal issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
[1] The application before me is for the grant of ad hoc licence to permit the petitioner, Mr Malik Imtiaz Ahmed B Ghulam Sarwar, a senior counsel from Peninsular Malaysia, to practise in the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kuching as the senior and lead counsel for Petroliam Nasional Berhad ("PETRONAS") in two cases namely:
(a) Judicial Review Application No: KCH-13NCvC-8/11-2019 (HC4) (the "JR Proceedings"), and any related interlocutory proceedings and appeals to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court of Malaysia arising therefrom; and
(b) Civil Suit No: KCH-21NCvC-10/11-2019 (HC 2) (the "Civil Suit"), and any related interlocutory proceedings and appeals to the Court of Appeal and Federal Court of Malaysia arising therefrom.
[2] The petition is made under ss 4 and 10 (c) of the Sarawak Advocates Ordinance 1953 (Chapter 110) ("SAO 1953") and was filed by Messrs Idris, Alvin Chong & Partners Advocates, the local advocates otherwise known as the instructing solicitors. The Chambers of the State Attorney General and the Advocates' Association of Sarawak object to the application.
[3] I have noted the arguments put forward by Mr Nur Azhar and Mr Desmond Sahathevan.
Decision
[4] Based on the affidavit evidence placed before me, I am satisfied that the procedural requirements under the SAO 1953 and the Sarawak Advocates (Pupillage and Admission) Rules, 2014 (Swk L N (F) 2) have been fulfilled in that:
3.1 The Petitioner was conferred the Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) from the International Islamic University, Malaysia in 1993;
3.2 The Petitioner has been admitted to practise as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya in 1994;
3.3 The Petitioner has been instructed by Messrs IACPA, who is a local advocate; and
3.4 Two recent testimonials as to the good character of the Petitioner have been provided.
[5] As stated in In the Matter of a Petition by Cyrus Das , at p 811, there is only one test to be applied when considering a petition under s 10(c) of the SAO 1953. It is, whether having regard to all circumstances, it is in the interest of justice to grant permission to practice.
[6] In my considered opinion, it is in the interest of justice to grant the Petitioner the permission sought. My reasons for saying so are these.
