The court upheld the right of a party to choose their counsel, emphasizing that mere allegations of conflict do not suffice to disqualify representation unless proven.

JUDGMENT

Noor Ruwena Md Nurdin JC:

Background

[1] The parties herein will be referred to as they are at the High Court. A Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal was filed by Messrs Sandeep, Gobindeep & Co on 3 May 2024 on behalf of the Plaintiffs against the decision of this Court dated 3 April 2024. The decision was in respect of a Preliminary Objection ("the PO") by the Plaintiffs in Encl 79 of this civil suit. I now give my reasons for dismissing the PO in the Grounds of Judgment.

[2] The PO in Encl 79 was a letter dated 28 March 2024 that was filed rather late, ie a few days before the trial of this suit was supposed to commence. The trial dates were set for 1- 4 April 2024. The letter stated that the Plaintiffs objected to Messrs BH Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners acting as solicitors for the 2nd Defendant in the suit, who happened to be the same law firm. It was the Plaintiffs' contention that Messrs BH Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners cannot represent itself in breach of the Legal Profession Act 1976 and Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 , in particular, rr 5, 27, 28 and 31.

Hearing On Preliminary Objection

[3] The Plaintiffs are husband and wife, who are registered owners of 2 properties known as PM 9454 Lot 316630 Mukim Asam Kumbang, Daerah Larut Matang, Negeri Perak and PM 9455 Lot 316631 Mukim Asam Kumbang, Daerah Larut Matang, Negeri Perak ("the Properties"). The Plaintiffs had entered into 2 loan agreements with the 1st Defendant totalling RM1,200,000.00 and the Properties were charged as security for the loans. It was alleged that the 1st Defendant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Moneylenders Act 1951 [Act 400] and rules thereunder.

[4] It was also contended in the Plaintiffs' Statement of Claim that the loan agreements were defective, wherein certain clauses had been intentionally omitted by the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant. It was alleged further that Andrew Soong Tze Toong, a partner of the 2nd Defendant who acted for the 2nd Defendant, was not appointed by the Plaintiffs, and that he was a close friend of the 1st Defendant, and that they did not know him. Moreover, despite the loan amount stipulated in the loan agreements, the Plaintiffs only received an amount of RM607,976.40.

[5] During the hearing of the PO on 1 April 2024, the Court heard oral submissions by the parties and referred to a few case laws cited by them. The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that Messrs BH Koh, Soong, Zarin & Partners had breached the said Rules because Andrew Soong Tze Toong ("Andrew Soong") and the 2nd Defendant had a pecuniary interest in this suit. The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs and the Court did not know if counsel from the 2nd Defendant's firm appearing for the 2nd Defendant in the suit had pecuniary interest in the matter or if they would be appearing as witnesses. Therefore, it was contended that it was questionable if counsel from the 2nd Defendant would be able to uphold the dignity of the profession since they would defend their own firm and partner at all costs.

[6] The PO was intended to remove the 2nd Defendant firm from acting for the 2nd Defendant, as there was no guarantee that the 2nd Defendant's counsel were independent, and that they would not be prejudiced if the PO was upheld by the Court. Hence, the issue of "pecuniary interest" of the 2nd Defendant in this suit must be taken into consideration by the Court to allow the PO.

[7] The Plaintiffs' counsel submitted that the Federal Court decision in the case of Vijayalakshmi Devi Nadchatiram v. Saraswathy Devi Nadchatiram , 2000 MarsdenLR 1181 applied to the present case, as it was still good law and had not been overruled. It was argued that the 2nd Defendant should be represented by another law firm, as counsel who appeared for the 2nd Defendant in the PO could not be independent when the suit involved his partner, Andrew Soong. The Court was also referred to the case of Gurbachan Singh Bagawan Singh &