Disciplinary proceedings are distinct from civil suits and must continue to protect public interest; special circumstances must be established for a stay, which the Plaintiff failed to do.

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff had on 15 March 2023 filed an application by way of Originating Summons (OS) (Encl 1) seeking inter alia the following orders:

a) That the whole of the Disciplinary Board Proceedings in DB/20/0490 be stayed pending the final disposal of the Civil Suit in Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: WA-22NCVC-33-01/2021 which has now been relodged as WA- 22NCC-110-03/2021 (Suit 110);

b) An interim order that the Disciplinary Board Proceedings in DB/20/0490 be stayed pending the final disposal of this Application for the substantive motion of a stay, as in prayer (a);

c) No order as to costs; and

d) Any such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant.

[2] The grounds supporting the OS are contained in the Affidavit in Support affirmed by Kenneth Godfrey Gomes (NRIC: 591108-10-5005) filed herein which are briefly as follows:

a) The Defendant had filed a Disciplinary Board Complaint against the Plaintiff via DB/20/0490 which has now been fixed for full hearing on 11 April 2023, 13 April 2023 and 14 April 2023;

b) The Complaint raises the same issues in the High Court Suit 110 which has earlier been fixed for Hearing in April/May 2023 and has now been transferred to NCC3 before Tuan Wan Amin Yahya and which however has been postponed to the 8-12, 22-26 and 29-31 January 2024;

c) Wherein after a full trial, all the issues that the Defendant has pleaded, will be ventilated in full, and factual and legal findings will be made by the relevant High Court Judge in NCC3;

d) Unless the High Court has had the opportunity to hear witnesses and deliberate on its findings and submissions and come to a conclusion and decision on the Defendant's allegation, this Complaint is premature and/or usurps the jurisdiction of the High Court with regards to the same issues that are now in the Complaint and similarly that are now before the said High Court, which is now fixed for full trial in the hearing dates mentioned above;

e) The Complaint is sub-judice, as all the issues raised in the Complaint are exactly the same and similarly is also pending before the High Court;

f) That the issues raised in this Complaint and in the High Court are completely reliant on the same findings of facts, and since the High Court will make such findings and also make a decision which in the Plaintif's opinion will be binding on Disciplinary Board in so far as the factual aspects are concerned. It would therefore be practical, prudent, time saving and cost effective if this Complaint is stayed until the Decision of the High Court is heard and delivered accordingly, and the Grounds of the Decision of the Court can then be fully understood by all the parties in this matter including the Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary Committee that will be hearing the matter;

g) In the Complaint, and before the Disciplinary Committee, now constituted, the right of the Plaintiff to subpoena witnesses, request documents and various other processes that is at the Plaintiff's disposal which will be available in the High Court, would be absent in any hearing before a Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, in the disposal of the Complaint, justice would not be served especially in a case of this gravity which on the facts of the Complaint relies heavily on factual matters which border on allegations of cheating and misappropriation;

h) Furthermore, the High Court matter is ag