Hj Mohd Eusoff Bin Chin SCJ:

The appellant was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court on 17 November 1975. The Bar Council (respondent) had refused under s. 32 of the Legal Profession Act 1976, (hereinafter the Act) , to issue a Sijil Annual for the year 1994.

Under s. 29 of the Act , the Registrar of the High Court will not issue a Practising Certificate to an advocate and solicitor unless the advocate and solicitor submits to the Registrar the last Sijil Annual issued to him by the Bar Council.

Under s. 32 of the Act , the Bar Council is empowered to issue a Sijil Annual to an advocate and solicitor if his application complies with the requirements of that section. One of the requirements is that the advocate and solicitor must deliver with his application an Accountant's Report prepared in accordance with s. 79 of the Act .

It was in 1985 when the appellant went into partnership with Margaret Yeo Eng Hong and Nasrim b. Dato' Sallleh to establish a law firm called Yip Yeo and Nasrim in Petaling Jaya with a branch office in Kuala Lumpur. On 30 September 1990 the appellant left his firm, and practised under the name of Peter Yip & Yong in Petaling Jaya.

In 1991 the appellant applied for a Sijil Annual for 1992. On 22 November 1991 the Bar Council asked the appellant for the Accountant's Report of Yip Yeo and Nasrim in respect of their Petaling Jaya and Kuala Lumpur offices for the period 1 January 1990 to 30 September 1990. The appellant replied that since he had left his former firm, he had no control over the auditing of the firm, and that his former partners should be responsible for the finalisation of the accounts of that firm. The Bar Council wrote to the appellant and his former partners on 6 December 1991 advising them to meet and resolve all outstanding issues so that a clean Accountant's Report could be issued to enable them to obtain their Sijil Annual for 1992.

Following further correspondence, the appellant, Margaret Yeo and their auditor Christopher Chooi appeared before the Sijil Annual Committee of the Bar Council on 15 January 1992 to give their views.

Margaret Yeo said she was responsible only for the running of the Kuala Lumpur office of the firm and could produce the accounts of that office but was unable to produce the accounts for the Petaling Jaya office over which she had no control and the appellant was not co-operative. At the meeting, the committee was informed that an accounts clerk of the firm had paid in some of the clients' monies. Their auditor told the committee that with the files made available to him, he still could not reconcile a figure amounting to RM341,095.30.

The respondent decided that the appellant be given up to 29 July 1992 to submit the Accountant's Report. However, the appellant required more time, and the date was extended to 31 December 1992. The appellant and Margaret Yeo agreed that auditors be appointed by the Bar Council to examine the the accounts of the firm. Abu Bakar Rajuddin & Co was appointed as independent auditors for that purpose. The auditors asked for three months' extension beyond 31 December 1992. Meanwhile the Bar Council decided, in the circumstances, to issue the Sijil Annual for the years 1992 and 1993 to the appellant pending the production of the Accountant's Report.

There was no progress on the auditors' work, and the Bar Council agreed to the appointment of another firm of accountants Messrs. Monteiro and Heng who started work in July 1993, and they were given up to 31 December 1993 to finish their report.

On 18 November 1993 the appellant made an application for the year 1994.

On 30 December 1993, the Bar Council received Messrs. Monteiro and Heng's report on the audit of the appellant's former firm at the Petaling Jaya office showing Clients' Account for the period 1 January 1990 to 30 September 1990. The report stated that on the dissolution of the firm on 30 September 1990, the appellant took some of the files whi