Inordinate delay and procedural impropriety in disciplinary proceedings can undermine fairness, justifying judicial review and quashing of decisions.

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court (HC) which granted an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the 2nd Appellant which is the Disciplinary Appeal Board (DAB) in finding the Respondent guilty of the charges of unprofessional conduct and the consequential punishment.

Parties

[2] The 1st Appellant is the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) incorporated under the Accountants Act 1967 (the Act) to inter alia regulate the practice of the profession of accountancy in Malaysia (s 6(c)). Section 19 of the Act empowers the appointment of an Investigation Committee (IC), a Disciplinary Committee and a DAB with the functions as spelt out in ss 20 and 21.

[3] The Respondent is an accountant and auditor who practices in the name and style of Messrs Kumpulan Naga (the firm).

Background Facts

[4] On 11 December 2012, the Registrar of MIA received a complaint (the Complaint) from the chairman of the Practice Review Committee (PRC) against the Respondent. The Complaint was for failing to maintain, observe or apply the expected professional standards under para 42 of Appendix VII to MIA's By-Laws (On Professional Ethics, Conduct and Practice) 2007 (ByLaws).

[5] The Complaint was based on a review conducted on the firm on 6 to 9 March 2006 with an exit meeting next held. A report known as the First Review Report (FRR) dated 29 November 2006 was prepared and issued to the Respondent who denied having received it.

[6] On 4 to 7 May 2010 and 11 May 2010, a follow-up review was conducted on the firm to ascertain if the Respondent had undertaken the corrective measures highlighted in the FRR. A closing meeting was held.

[7] A Follow-Up Review Report (FURR) dated 6 November 2011 was prepared and brought before the PRC. The PRC concluded that the firm had failed to maintain, observe or apply the expected professional standards in its audit work. A copy of the FURR was sent to the Respondent.

[8] The Registrar then issued a formal Notice of Complaint (the Notice) dated 18 February 2013 to the Respondent (encl 17/79-80). By the Notice, it was stated the Respondent may have breached ss 550.1 and 550.2 of the By-Laws dealing with Quality Assurance and s 150.1 of the By-Laws dealing with Professional Behaviour. These deal, respectively, with the alleged failure of the firm to adopt and apply policies and procedures designed to maintain adherence to professional standards and the obligations to avoid any action that may bring discredit to the profession.

[9] Under s 20(1) of the Act, the IC shall investigate any complaints made. Having heard the written and oral representations of the Respondent, the IC decided to refer the matter to the DC. This was communicated to the Respondent by letter dated 4 June 2015 that he had a case to answer in respect of a contravention of the By-Laws. A charge was also made out against the Respondent on 13 July 2015.

[10] On 26 May 2019, the DC decided that the Respondent had committed an act amounting to unprofessional conduct. The DC imposed the following punishment:

(a) an imposition of a fine RM5,000.00;

(b) the Respondent was to give MIA RM25,082.40 in respect of costs and expenses incidental to the disciplinary hearing before the DC and the investigation conducted by the IC; and

(c) the Respondent was directed to