Abdul Malik Ishak JCA:

[1] Enclosure 4 is an application by the applicant/appellant for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Board ('the DB') given on 31 March 2005.

[2] At the commencement of the hearing of this application on 26 September 2005, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Mr Manokaran, objected to the presence of the counsel for the DB, namely, Mr Su Tiang Joo and Ms Michelle Ong on the ground that the DB is not a party to the proceeding.

[3] Mr Su, however, informed the court that he and Ms Ong were before the court merely as counsel for a party (the DB) that had been served with the cause papers by the appellant; or, alternatively, he (and his co-counsel) was before the court, on behalf of the DB, as a friend of the court (that is to say as amicus curiae). Mr Su made it clear to the court that he was not taking a partisan stand and that he was before the court merely to bring to the attention of the court all the materials available before the DB pertaining to the applicant's case.

[4] Considering that the counsel for the applicant/appellant appears to have no strong objection to Mr Su and Ms Ong appearing merely as amicus curiae, and that Mr Su and Ms Ong themselves were contented to appear merely as amicus curiae, the court, accordingly, on 27 February 2006, invited Mr Su and his junior to participate in the proceeding as amicus curiae. As amicus curiae, Mr Su's contribution was very helpful to the court in arriving at a decision.

[5] The applicant/appellant was an Advocate and Solicitor of the High court of Malaya. The DB had on 31 March 2005 made a decision that he be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the High court of Malaya.

[6] The notice of appeal was filed on 16 May 2005. It was filed pursuant to s 103E of the Legal Profession Act 1976 As required by the said provision of the Legal Profession Act, the notice of appeal must be filed within one month of the date of decision. As it was filed only on 16 May 2005, thus, there has been a delay of about 17 days in the filing of the notice of appeal. Hence, the applicant/appellant filed the present application for extension of time. The present application was also filed on the same day as the notice of appeal.

[8] I am in agreement with my learned brother judge, Abdul Malik Ishak J (now JCA), that there is no merit in the present application for an extension of time, and that this application, accordingly, be dismissed with costs. I share his finding that, based on the documentary evidence, the appellant at all material times had knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings against him, but had refused to attend the hearing of the same. In the light of such a conduct on his part, it is not open to him to now say that he was not aware of the proceedings or of the decision of the DB.

[9] I am also satisfied that he was duly notified of the decision of the DB. The decision of the DB was duly sent to his last known residential address both by registered post and ordinary post, as required by r 9 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Appeal) Rules 1994. Both letters were posted on 31 March 2005. None of the letters was returned undelivered. It is fair to infer that he had received those letters.

[10] In the present case, the delay is substantial. The delay is more than two weeks. And to add