NOTICE OF APPEAL / MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF MALAYSIA
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO: [To be inserted]

BETWEEN

[Appellant's Name]
(NRIC No: [To be inserted])
... APPELLANT

AND

Securities Commission
... RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL

The Appellant appeals from the whole decision of the Court of Appeal dated [insert date] dismissing the Appellant's appeal with costs and setting aside the High Court's order restoring the KLSE appointment. (!)

Grounds of Appeal

Ground 1: Error in Statutory Interpretation of Section 53(1) SIA – "Independent Auditor or Such Other Person/Body"

1.1 The Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that the phrase "independent auditor or such other person/body" in s. 53(1) SIA permits the appointment of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange ("KLSE"), a stock exchange not qualifying as an "approved company auditor" under s. 2 SIA, thereby misapplying the plain and ordinary meaning of the provision. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

1.2 The disjunctive "or" must be read ejusdem generis with "independent auditor," limiting "such other person/body" to entities of the same genus – qualified, independent auditors capable of auditing books, accounts, and records as defined under s. 2 SIA; KLSE, as a stock exchange under ss. 8-9B SIA, lacks such qualification and independence from dealers like JBSSB. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

1.3 The Court of Appeal further erred by allowing the Appellant to be dictated to accept only an "independent auditor," ignoring the Appellant's statutory right to request and the Respondent's power to appoint a qualified "independent auditor" upon satisfaction under s. 53(4) SIA, rendering the phrase nugatory if stock exchanges suffice. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Ground 2: Illegality in Exercise of Discretion – Improper Reversal and Failure to Follow Statutory Process

2.1 The Court of Appeal erred in law in finding no "reversal" by the Respondent, when the Respondent's letter of 29 June 1998 appointing KLSE under s. 53 constituted an exercise of discretion under s. 53(1), binding the Respondent to proceed under ss. 54-55 SIA (investigation/report by independent body leading to conclusions/remedies), which was not done. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

2.2 Once the Respondent was satisfied of "good reason and expediency" to appoint KLSE as "such other body" under s. 53(1) and (4), it could not unilaterally investigate, reject findings, and refuse the application without KLSE's report under s. 54 or invoking s. 55; the subsequent investigation and refusal on 19 August 1999 was ultra vires and tainted by jurisdictional error. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

2.3 The Court of Appeal erred in holding ss. 54-55 inapplicable as "not an audit," when s. 53 empowers examination/audit of books, etc., triggering the full process; the Respondent's self-investigation bypassed the mandatory independent mechanism. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Ground 3: Breach of Procedural Fairness and Irrationality in Refusal

3.1 The Court of Appeal erred in finding the Respondent's process fair and reasonable, when the refusal ignored the Appellant's verified statutory declaration (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) alleging specific irregularities (unauthorised transactions, contract amendments, 50,000 Megafirst shares (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) ), and relied on incomplete investigation findings contradicted by evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

3.2 The decision to refuse was Wednesbury unreasonable, as no proper consideration of "good reason" under s. 53(4) was shown post-KLSE appointment, and AMIM's status as non-"relevant person" under s. 48(2) was wrongly used to evade scrutiny despite margin facility involvement. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Ground 4: Error on Availability of Judicial Review Remedies

4.1 The Court of Appeal erred in law in denying certiorari, as the Respondent's decision involved jurisdictional error (misinterpretation of s. 53, improper reversal) and error of law on the face of the record (refusal letters (!) (!) ), warranting quashing. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4.2 Mandamus was wrongly denied, as s. 53 imposes a public duty on the Respondent, upon satisfaction of s. 53(4), to appoint an independent auditor or equivalent, which was not performed; the power is not purely discretionary but conditioned on application requirements met. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

4.3 Alternative remedies (private suits (!) (!) ) are inadequate for regulatory enforcement under SIA; non-disclosure did not vitiate leave, and restoration of KLSE was inconsistent with findings. (!) (!) (!)

Ground 5: Misapplication of Section 48A SIA

5.1 The Court of Appeal erred in dismissing s. 48A's relevance, which prohibits a "relevant person" appointing an associate for investigations; while Respondent is not a "relevant person," KLSE's regulatory oversight of dealers like JBSSB renders it non-independent, breaching the section's spirit. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Relief Sought

1. Allow the appeal.
2. Set aside the Court of Appeal's decision.
3. Restore the High Court's orders or, in the alternative, grant certiorari to quash the Respondent's refusal and mandamus to appoint an independent auditor under s. 53 SIA.
4. Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit.
5. Costs here and below to the Appellant.

DATED this [day] day of [month], [year].

COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
[Name/Firm]
[Address]
[Contact details]

To: The Registrar
Federal Court of Malaysia
Putrajaya.