Timely intervention in legal proceedings is necessary; delay may result in dismissal of the application.

[1] On 3 November 2017, Dr Lourdes Dava Raj a/l Curuz Durai Raj, the proposed intervener herein (the applicant) had filed a Notice of Motion seeking to be granted leave of this court to intervene in these proceedings to set aside the order of this court dated 27 October 2015. If leave is granted, the applicant seeks a consequential order that the said order of this court be set aside, all steps taken and acts done by the Malaysian Medical Council qua the respondent pursuant to this court's order of 27 October 2015 including the decision of the respondent dated 21 June 2016 be set aside, the decision of the respondent dated 20 May 2014 dismissing the charge against the applicant be reinstated and consequently the appellant's appeal in these proceedings which was allowed by this court on 27 October 2015 be dismissed.

[2] The question that now arises concerns the reasons for which this motion was filed by the applicant some two years after the appeal herein was allowed by this court. What has emerged from the scrutiny of the affidavits filed by the parties relating to this motion, the reasons for which and the circumstances under which the above reliefs are sought, may be traced back to a letter dated 31 December 2009 in which the appellant made a complaint to the respondent against the applicant for breach of principles of confidentiality of the medical profession in carrying out his duties as the person in charge of Assunta Hospital, Petaling Jaya when he distributed details of patients such as names, admission dates, their state of health and clinical prognosis before two Medical and Dental Advisory Committee meetings. At that material time, the applicant was the Chief Medical Services Officer of Assunta Hospital whilst the appellant was a visiting Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist at the said hospital. Following the said complaint, an inquiry was held and commenced before the respondent's Preliminary Inquiry Committee (the Committee). The hearings took place over four days on 8 December 2010, 6 April 2010, 5 September 2011 and 4 June 2012. The inquiry was attended by the applicant. It is noteworthy that the applicant was legally represented at the inquiry before the Committee.

[3] At the conclusion of the inquiry and after hearing the appellant's evidence and his witnesses, the Committee on 25 March 2013 decided that the evidence presented before it supported the allegations made by the appellant and proceeded to frame a charge against the applicant for infamous conduct in a professional respect under s 29(2)(b) of the Medical Act 1971 . Following the said charge, the applicant elected to present his defence to the charge before the Committee on 28 October 2013 wherein he had admitted that he breached patient's confidentiality by revealing their details without the patients or their next-of-kin's consent. The Committee found that there were grounds to support the charge and recommended that there be an inquiry before the respondent.

[4] After the close of the inquiry before the respondent on 20 May 2014, by a majority decision, it was found that no case had been made out against the applicant and the respondent consequently directed the charge be dismissed. The applicant was formally notified of the decision on 12 June 2014. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the respondent's decision and unbeknown to the applicant, filed for judicial review at the Kuala Lumpur High court on 22 July 2014 for which leave was granted on 26 August 2014. However, on 8 May 2015, the learned High court Judge dismissed the appellant's judicial review application with costs. On 27 May 2015, the appellant filed an appeal to this court against the said High court's decision. On 27 October 2015, this court after hearing submissions from both parties, allowed the appeal and quashed the respondent's decision and substituted it with an order that the