JUDGMENTBY: EDGAR JOSEPH JR SCJ (DELIVERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT)

This appeal revolves around the question whether the provisions as to time as set forth in ss 98 and 99 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (the Act) in the form that it took prior to its amendment by the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 1992, being Act A 812, which came into force on 1 April 1992 by virtue of Legal Notification 117 dated 9 March 1992, are mandatory or directory.

In this judgment all references to section shall, unless the context otherwise requires, be to the Act.

Upon an application by originating summons taken out by the plaintiff, Encik Joseph Au Kong Weng, an advocate and solicitor, against whom a complaint by the then secretary to the Bar Council, under s 95(1) of the Act had been made, alleging misuse of his firms trust account, citing the Bar Council, states of Malaya, and the members of a disciplinary committee appointed by the Chief Justice under s 99, consequent thereto, namely Messrs Harbans Singh Bhal, Lee Kwong Wah and Dato Mohd Amin bin Mohd Daud, as the first, second, third and fourth defendants, respectively, Eusoff Chin J (as he then was) decided that the provisions as to time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document