Disciplinary processes must follow legislative intent; premature challenges to procedural decisions of a quasi-judicial body are not permissible.

[1] This is the Appellants' appeal against the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") dated 9 September 2020 in allowing the Respondent's Originating Summons dated 3 May 2016 ("OS"), inter alia, for the following orders:

(i) a declaration that the Preliminary Investigation Committee I ("PIC") is irregular and/or invalid in law; and

(ii) a declaration that the decision of the PIC on 28 May 2014 is null and void.

[2] Having considered the submissions of all parties, we have allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the learned JC.

The Salient Facts

[3] The Respondent is a registered medical practitioner under the Medical Act 1971 ("Act 50").

[4] The First Appellant is the appointed Chairman of the PIC established by the Second Appellant, the Malaysian Medical Council ("MMC").

[5]Vide a letter dated 21 January 2005, a complaint was lodged with the MMC against the Respondent pertaining to the conduct and treatment a complainant had received from the Respondent ("the Complaint").

[6] The MMC had appointed the PIC, which composed of three members pursuant to reg 26, of the Medical Regulations 1974 (the "1974 Regulations"):

(i) the First Appellant;

(ii) Dr Low Nan Hang ("Dr Low"); and

(iii) Dato' Dr Ismail Saad ("Dr Ismail").

[7] The PIC was to conduct a preliminary investigation into the Complaint and make a recommendation to the MMC on whether to hold an inquiry or otherwise against the Respondent, depending on the findings of the PIC. The function of the PIC is not to make a finding of guilt against the Respondent, but merely a finding of whether there are sufficient grounds to recommend that the MMC hold an inquiry against the Respondent.

[8] Following the preliminary investigation inquiry conducted by the PIC on 13 February 2006 ("1st Hearing"), 22 May 2006 ("2nd Hearing") and 23 April 2014 ("3rd Hearing"), it was found that there are grounds to support the charge against the Respondent and a recommendation was made for an inquiry to be held by the MMC against the Respondent ("Recommendation"). The Recommendation was communicated to the Respondent vide the MMC's letter dated 28 May 2014.

[9] The Respondent then filed the OS, and the Appellants subsequently filed a Notice of Application dated 15 June 2016 to strike out the OS premised on the fact that there were four previous actions filed by the Respondent that constitute similar facts as the present matter.

[10] The OS was struck out in the High Court vide Order dated 17 October 2016, and the Respondent filed an appeal against the said High Court Order, to which this Court had allowed the Respondent's appeal against the said High Court decision and the matter was remitted to the High Court on its merits.

[11] The Learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the OS on 9 September 2020 and the Appellants subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal dated 2 October 2020 to appeal against the decision of the Learned JC in allowing the OS.

Decision Of The High Court

[12] The Learned JC ruled that the composition of the PIC complied with reg 26(2) when the PIC was formed in 2005. The PIC then consisted of 3 members namely the First Appellant, Dr Low and Dr Ismail. During the 1st Hearing and the 2nd Hearing, the PIC was properly constituted when all three members attended the meetings. However, Dr Ismail passed away on 7 March 2014, whilst the preliminary investigation by the PIC was still ongo