Mohd Hishamudin Yunus J:

This is an interlocutory application by the plaintiffs pursuant to O. 29 r. 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant, an advocate and solicitor, from representing owners of shop lots in a shopping complex sued by the plaintiffs in the subordinate courts. In the civil suits in the subordinate courts, the plaintiffs are claiming against the shop lots owners for the payment of maintenance fee in respect of the shopping complex. The case numbers of the civil suits, all instituted in the subordinates courts of Kuala Lumpur, are specified in a list annexed to the statement of claim and the summons in chambers.

The 1st plaintiff company is the developer of a shopping complex in Kuala Lumpur, known as "Kompleks Desa".

The 2nd plaintiff company was appointed by the 1st plaintiff to be in charge of the management of the shopping complex. One of the duties of the 2nd plaintiff is to collect the maintenance fee, on behalf of the 1st plaintiff, from the owners of the shop lots in the shopping complex.

In the sale and purchase agreements between the 1st plaintiff and the shop lots owners, the former is given the right to collect maintenance fee from the latter. Such fee is to be utilized for the maintenance of the shopping complex.

The defendant is one of the owners of the shop lots in the shopping complex.

There is a dispute between the plaintiffs and some of the owners of the shop lots, including the defendant, regarding the right of the plaintiff to unilaterally increase the maintenance fee under the sale and purchase agreements. The plaintiffs contend that they have the right under the sale and purchase agreements to unilaterally increase the maintenance fee, and allege that some of the owners of the shop lots are in breach of the sale and purchase agreements by refusing to pay the increased maintenance fee. The owners of the shop lots concerned, on the other hand, maintain that it is the plaintiffs themselves who are in breach of the sale and purchase agreements by imposing a maintenance fee which is excessive and not permissible under the agreements.

The plaintiffs have filed civil actions against the said owners of the shop lots (including the defendant) in the subordinate courts in Kuala Lumpur to recover the maintenance fee allegedly due to the plaintiffs. The names and numbers of the relevant civil suits are specified in a list (the suit against the defendant, however, is not included in the list) annexed to the statement of claim and also to present summons in chambers. The defendants in the subordinate courts cases have appointed the defendant to represent them as counsel.

The plaintiffs object to the defendant acting as counsel for the defendants in the subordinate courts on the ground that such an appointment results in a conflict of interest. The plaintiffs argue that since the defendant is one of the owners of the shop lots who dispute the plaintiffs' right to increase the maintenance fee, and is also one of those sued by the plaintiffs' in the subordinate courts for refusing to pay the maintenance fee, therefore, he has a pecuniary interest in the outcome of the cases. It is argued by the plaintiffs that should the outcome of the suits in the subordinate courts be in favour of the defendants, then, the defendant will also benefit financially from the decision of the courts. The plaintiffs cite the provisions rr. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 27 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978, and the case of Sinwara Sdn Bhd v. Maris Housing Sdn Bhd & Ors ; [2003] 6 MLJ 771.

The plaintiffs, however, place emphasis more on r. 27. This rule provides as follows:

27 Advocate and solicitor not to appear where pecuniarily interested.

(a) An advocate and solicitor shall not appear in any matter in which he is directly pecuniarily interested.

(b) This rule does not apply to the case of an advocate and solicitor appearing himself to tax his own cost