Back
2017 MarsdenLR 2437
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN 3 TWO SQUARE – Appellant
Versus
3 TWO SQUARE SDN BHD – Respondent
[Suit No: 22NCVC-510-07/2013]
Public confidence in justice mandates strict adherence to conflict-of-interest rules, prioritizing perceived fairness in legal representation.
Headnote:Rules 28 and 29 regulate the disqualification of advocates where they may be witnesses. The court emphasized the need for public confidence in justice, referencing previous cases to underline that perceived fairness is crucial. The application to disqualify the Plaintiff's solicitors was denied, affirming their competency to represent the Plaintiff effectively.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the contempt application regarding a witness's testimony. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. explanation of disqualification rules to safeguard justice. (Para 7) |
[1] This is an application by the Defendant in the main suit that arises out of ex-parte application by the Plaintiff for leave to commit a witness for the Defendant ('DW4') for contempt of court by an alleged act of perjury. Vide this application, made on the basis of non-compliance with rr 28 and 29 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules, 1978 ('the Rules'), the Defendant seeks, inter alia, to recuse the firm of solicitors representing the Plaintiff, Ramli Yusof & Co ('RY') from further conduct of this case on the ground of conflict of interest on the part of co-counsel one Nik Abdul Matin Fawwaz Hj Nik Safeia ('Nik Matin'), from the same firm.
Grounds Of Application
[2] The Plaintiff's solicitors had filed an ex-parte notice of application dated 14 November 2016 for leave for an order of committal against a Defence Witness ('DW4') and the court had granted the order that was sought on 25 November 2016.
[3] Nik Matin, who was a co-counsel for the Plaintiff at the trial of this action and present during the testimony of DW4 had sworn an affidavit in support ('AIS') in which he deposed that DW4 had given false testimonies on oath in several instances and made adverse comments and allegations against the witness.
[4] Nik Matin alleged that DW4 had given false testimonies based merely on notes of evidence that had yet to be approved and finalized by the parties.
[5] Nik Matin filed the affidavits in support of the committal proceedings against DW4 which contained material facts disclosed by the Defendant and DW2 and which had given rise to a conflict of interest contrary to rr 28 and 29 of the Rules
[6] Plaintiff's solicitor were potential witnesses for Plaintiff in the contempt proceedings and no longer competent to represent Plaintiff as solicitors in the instant civil action. If the firm of solicitors, RY &Co were permitted to act for P1 it would place the credibility of the solicitors at stake and prejudice DW4 and the Defendant. It is important that public trust in the court be assured and that litigants should not be led to believe that they would face short comings in court.
The Law Applicable
[7]Rules 28 and 29 of the Rules govern the disqualification of an Advocate and Solicitor from appearing in a case where he is likely to be a witness. They state expressly that:
