The court ruled that a formal complaint's validity hinges on clear assertions of misconduct rather than mere requests for investigation, which were not met.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant against the decision of the Court of Appeal in dismissing its appeal against the decision of the High Court in which the learned judge had affirmed the Disciplinary Board's (DB) decision in dismissing the appellant's complaint against the respondent for professional misconduct.

[2] We have heard the appeal and reserved our decision. We have since further considered the submissions of respective counsel and now give our decision and grounds.

[3] This judgment is prepared pursuant to s 78(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, as our learned brother, Justice Dato' Sri Balia Yusof Haji Wahi has since retired.

Background Facts

[4] The appellant is the Bar Council of Malaysia, a statutory body tasked, among others, with overseeing the conduct of its members who are advocates and solicitors practicing in Peninsular Malaysia.

[5] The respondent is a member of the Malaysian Bar and had a complaint made against him by a letter dated 4 April 2013 to the DB of the Malaysian Bar. The circumstances in which the complaint was made were these.

[6] Balasubramaniam Perumal (Bala) was a prosecution witness in the murder trial of Altantuya Shaaribuu (Altantuya) and had, on 1 July 2008, signed a statutory declaration (SD1) where he had, inter alia, implicated Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak (Datuk Seri Najib) in a relationship with Altantuya. Americk Singh Sidhu (Americk), then Bala's solicitor, had drafted SD1 on Bala's instructions. In a press conference on 3 July 2008, SD1 was made known to the public.

[7] Bala, however, on 4 July 2008, signed another statutory declaration (SD2) disavowing the entire contents of SD1 and at the same time alleged that SD1 was signed under duress. In a press conference on 4 July 2008, SD2 was made known to the public.

[8] On or around 12 November 2009, Bala in a three-part video interview which was made known to the public alleged that he signed SD2 under duress.

[9] In a video interview with TV PAS, on or around 12 December 2012, one Deepak Jaikishan (Deepak) identified the solicitors involved in the preparation of SD2 but during the broadcast, that part of the interview was deleted/ muted. Speculation ran rife as to the respondent's involvement regarding the preparation of SD2.

[10] At a wedding function meeting at Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur on 14 December 2012, where the respondent's wife; Tommy Thomas and his wife; Lim Chee Wee; Darryl Goon and his wife and Dato' Johari Razak and his wife were present, the respondent had allegedly confirmed that he was the solicitor who had been involved with the drafting of SD2.

[11] In view of what had transpired, the appellant on 21 January 2013 wrote to the respondent and Sunil Abraham (Sunil) to enquire whether they had any knowledge of the allegations made regarding the preparation of SD2. The relevant part of the letter reads:

"As both of you may be aware, ... there had been speculation and allegations in various media, of your involvement with regard to the preparation of the SD2.

In view of the allegations of potential misconduct, we are duty-bound to enquire into whether any aspects of the matter have any implications on any issue of professional misconduct.

As such, we would be obliged if you could furnish us with any information with regard to the preparation of SD2 and whether you have any knowledge of the same."

[12] The respondent and Sunil, through their solicitors, by a letter dated 23 January 2013, inf