Procedural compliance is essential in legal appeals, and negligence by a previous solicitor cannot justify non-compliance with court rules.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant Mazni Binti Ibrahim from the decision of the High Court at Shah Alam

At The High Court

[2] The appellant had applied by originating motion at the High Court for orders as follows:

i) Bahawa keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam bertarikh 9 Disember 2011 menolak aduan pihak pemohon dibawah s 103D Akta Profession Guaman 1976 hendaklah diketepikan;

ii) Responden telah melakukan salahlaku semasa mengendalikan kes yang melibatkan pemohon di dalam tindakan Saman Pemula No MT3-24-1872-2008;

iii) Kos permohonan ini dibayar oleh responden;

iv) Lain-lain relif yang mahkamah yang mulia ini fikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat.

[3] The grounds for the application were set out as follows:

i) Saya telah nasihati oleh peguamcara saya dan sesungguhnya percaya bahawa Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam telah terkhilaf dalam mencapai satu keputusan menolak aduan tersebut apabila gagal mengambil kira fakta-fakta dan dokumen sokongan yang disertakan bersama aduan tersebut yang jelas menunjukkan wujudnya salahlaku oleh responden.

ii) Saya akan merujuk mahkamah yang mulia ini kepada aduan tersebut dan segala penyataan saya serta dokumen-dokumen yang dimasukkan bersama aduan tersebut bagi menunjukkan bahawa sememangnya wujud salahlaku oleh responden.

iii) Saya menyatakan bahawa responden telah melakukan kesalahan seperti dalam aduan saya dan saya tidak bersetuju dengan keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam tersebut.

[4] In addition to the originating motion, the appellant had filed for the hearing:

i) An affidavit in support dated 18 January 2012 by the applicant; and

ii) Written submissions for the application.

[5] A preliminary objection was raised on the ground of non compliance with rr 4 and 5 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Appeal) Rules 1994, thereby rendering the motion defective and incompetent.

[6] The High Court dismissed the motion. We examined the Grounds of Judgment. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 5 of the Grounds of Judgment of the High Court show that the dismissal was upon the preliminary objection because the applicant had not only failed to file an appeal record within the time allowed by the rules but also failed to file any record of appeal and to serve the same on the respondent, the Disciplinary Board and the Bar Council. There was also no application to file the record of appeal out of time and there was no explanation given for non compliance with rr 4 and 5.

[7] In the alternative, assuming it was wrong in holding there was non compliance with rr 4 and 5, the High Court considered the motion, the affidavit in support and the written submission. It found that:

";[8] Dari butiran yang diberikan oleh pemohon tersebut yang telah menjadi ketidakpuasan hati pemohon ke atas keputusan Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam yang telah menolak pengaduan pemohon, mahkamah ini berpendapat salahlaku tersebut lebih menjurus kepada isu tanggungjawab professional oleh responden selaku peguamcara dalam pengendalian kes pemohon dan tidak boleh menjurus kepada satu salahlaku disiplin. Pemohon mungkin mempunyai remedi lain bagi melindungi haknya terhadap kegagalan tanggungjawab responden.";

[8] The High Court came to this conclusion because the particulars of misconduct set out in support of the originating motion were:

i) Tidak menunjukkan dokumen-dokumen penting kepada anak guam;

ii) Menyembunyikan maklumat daripada anak guam;

iii) Tidak memberitahu akan kewujudan affidavit pembet