A judicial review application is premature if it challenges non-final decisions within disciplinary proceedings, as parties must exhaust all available remedies before seeking court intervention.

Noorin Badaruddin J:

[1] This is the applicant's application for judicial review challenging the 1st respondent's decision in constituting a Disciplinary Committee ("DC") to conduct an inquiry into a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/ complainant against him ("decision").

Background Facts

[2] On 21 May 2020, the 1st respondent received a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent against the applicant dated 5 May 2020 ("complaint").

[3] On 18 September 2020 the 1st respondent issued a letter to the applicant requesting a written explanation to the complaint within 14 days from the date of receipt thereof pursuant to s 100(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (" LPA ").

[4] On 25 September 2020, the 1st respondent received a letter from the applicant requesting for an extension of time of 14 days to submit the explanation.

[5] Vide letter dated 5 October 2020, the 1st respondent granted an extension of time to the applicant to submit an explanation by 26 October 2020.

[6] On 27 October 2020, the 1st respondent received the applicant's written explanation dated 26 October 2020.

[7] On 16 November 2020 the 1st respondent issued a letter to the 2nd respondent requesting the 2nd respondent's response to the applicant's written explanation.

[8] On 7 December 2020 the 1st respondent received a response from the 2nd respondent to the applicant's written explanation ("Complainant's Reply").

[9] On or about 24 March 2021, the 1st respondent issued a letter informing the applicant and the 2nd respondent about the Decision. Parties were informed that pursuant to a meeting held on 19 March 2021 and ss 100(3)(b) and 103A(1)(a) LPA , the 1st respondent had decided to appoint the DC for a formal inquiry to be conducted into the complaint.

[10] On 31 May 2021, the DC issued a letter to the applicant enclosing the record of complaint ("Record of Complaint") pursuant to s 103B(4)(a) LPA and seeking the applicant's further action pursuant to s 103B(4)(b) .

[11] Upon receiving the letter and Record of Complaint from the DC, the applicant responded by way of an email dated 31 May 2021 to object to the appointment of the DC, citing that he had never seen the complainant's Reply and would wish to respond to it.

[12] On 2 June 2021, the 1st respondent responded to the applicant's email of 31 May 2021 to inform that the Decision to appoint the DC is maintained, and that the applicant will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the complainant's Reply in due course during the inquiry/hearing conducted by the DC.

[13] On 17 June 2021, the applicant filed the present application pursuant to O 53 r 3(2) Rules of 2012 ("ROC").

Summary Of The Applicant's Contentions

[14] Summarily, the applicant contends the followings:

a) The appointment of the DC was not made in accordance with the provisions as stipulated under the LPA ;

b) That he has been denied the right to reply to the complainant's Reply;

c) The 1st respondent's power is discretionary and the Decision is illegal, containing procedural impropriety and/or otherwise irrational including:

i. failure to accord the applicant full procedural fairness and/or natural justice;

ii. taking into account irrelevant consideration and fail to take into account relevant consideration;

iii. acting mechanically;

iv. failing to observe the statutory process under the LPA ;

v. that the Decision is irrational.

[15] The applicant further submits that the 1st respondent failed to take into account that the 2nd respondent had sought to expand the scope of and to change the character of the complaint.

Summary Of The 1st Respondent's Contentions

[16] It is the 1st respondent's position that this application is premature as the Decision is not reviewable because it is not a final decision that has conclusively determined the issues in the complaint. The applicant is said to have failed to exhaust the recourse or remedies provided under the LPA and there is no illegality, procedural impropriety and/or irrationality in the D