SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 MarsdenLR 1027

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
JASWINDER KAUR GURBACHAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
MOKHTAR SINGH LAL SINGH – Respondent
[Originating Summon No: WA-17D-22-05/2016]



Disciplinary actions against legal professionals can be upheld by the court if procedural requirements under the relevant legal framework are satisfied.

Headnote:The judgment examines the appeal against the Disciplinary Board's ruling dated 14 April 2016 regarding professional misconduct under the LPA. The Court found sufficient compliance with the procedural requirements for hearings and confirmed that the DB's decision was appropriate considering the Appellant's conduct. Key issues assessed included whether the DB had the authority to hear the complaint and determine the severity of the penalties imposed. The Court reaffirmed the DB's powers and found the punishments justified given the Appellant's actions. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts surrounding the appellant's misconduct and the complaint. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

[1] The Appellant filed for an order to set aside the decision of the Disciplinary Board (DB) dated 14 April 2016 in the Complaint No DC/15/9963 against the Appellant. The effect of which was to delete/withdraw the Appellant's register as a practicing lawyer (struck-off the Roll of Advocate & Solicitor); and an order to re-register the same and costs.

The Background Facts

[2] There was a sale and purchase transaction entered into between the Respondent as the vendor and another party as a purchaser of a property for the purchase price of RM300,000.00. The SPA dated 20 May 2014 was signed and the purchaser paid the deposit of RM10,000.00 to the estate agent for which RM2000.00 was deducted to pay the legal fees.

[3] Thereafter the sum of RM100,000.00 was paid to the Respondent by an online banking transfer dated 22 April 2015 in CIMB Bank. The balance of RM288,000.00 was paid on 17 September 2015 by a cash online in Hong Leong Bank.

[4] The Respondent lodged a complaint to the Bar on 10 January 2015 alleging a misconduct by the Appellant as he did not receive the balance of the purchase price from the purchaser.

[5] On 15 September 2015 the President of the DB of the Johor Bahru Bar Council wrote to the Respondent requesting him to withdraw the complaint as the balance purchase price had been paid and received.

[6] On 22 January 2016 the DC of the Johor Bahru Bar Council held the hearing and the Appellant was represented by her partner. The Respondent admitted to have received the balance purchase price nevertheless wished to proceed with the claim for compensation for the late delivery in the sum of RM25,000.00 (which was then paid on 10 March 2015 by the Appellant).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top