The court held that the appearance of a conflict of interest necessitates recusal, emphasizing fairness in legal representation over the right to counsel of choice.

Ravinthran Paramaguru JCA:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court that dismissed the application of the appellant to recuse a law firm from representing the second respondent in the judicial review application filed by the appellant.

Background Facts

[2] The applicant is a professional accountant and a member of the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) which is set up under the Accountants Act 1967 ( AA ). He audited the accounts of a corporation which is known as 1MDB for the financial years 2013 and 2014. In respect of this audit, two complaints were lodged with the MIA. One complaint was lodged by Mr Andrew Anand Solomon a/l Devesahayam on 31 March 2015. The other complaint was lodged by YB Mr Tony Pua Kim Wee on 26 May 2015.

[3] The Investigation Committee (IC) of the MIA investigated both complaints. At the conclusion of the investigations, the IC preferred disciplinary charges in respect of both complaints against the appellant before the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the MIA pursuant to s 20(1) of the Accountants Act 1967 . The parties have referred to the disciplinary proceedings as NYH-1 (complaint dated 31 March 2015) and NYH-2 (complaint dated 26 May 2015). The two proceedings were registered around the same time but NYH-1 was concluded earlier. The DC made a finding against the appellant on 5 September 2019 in NYH-1. The appellant filed an appeal to the Disciplinary Appeal Board of the MIA (DAB). The appeal is still pending. Subsequently, the appellant applied for dismissal of the charge in NYH-2 before the DC on the ground that the charge under it is the same as the charge in NYH-1. But on 23 September 2019, the DC dismissed this application.

[4] The appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the DC on 23 September 2019 not to dismiss NYH-2 on the ground of res judicata. He filed a judicial review application to quash the said decision. The first respondent is the DC and the second respondent is the MIA. Mr T. Sudhar and Miss Tania Edwards of Messrs. Steven Thiru & Sudhar Partnership (STSP) appeared for the MIA at the judicial review proceedings. Mr T. Sudhar had also appeared for the IC at the disciplinary hearing before the DC, ie in NYH-1 and NYH-2. The appellant filed an application (encl 21) to recuse any lawyer from the firm of STSP from representing the MIA as either solicitor or counsel in the judicial review proceedings.

Decision Of High Court

[5] The grounds of the application to recuse STSP as summarised by the learned High Court Judge are as follows:

"(i) STSP represents the IC in the pending appeal before the DAB in regard to the decision of the DC on the NYH-1 proceedings

(ii) The judicial review application will involve an examination of the NYH-1 and NYH-2 proceedings.

(iii) By representing MIA in the appeal before the DAB and in the judicial review proceedings, STSP would be engaged pre-emptively with members of the DC and the DAB on matter relating to the NYH-1 and NYH-2 proceedings.

(iv) As MIA and its funds are managed by the MIA Council, STSP would purportedly be taking instructions from the Council, which comprises members of the IC, DC, and the DAB in relation to the NYH-1 and NYH-2 proceedings."

[6] Based on the decision of this Court in Quah Poh Keat & Ors v. Ranjit Singh Taram Singh, 2025 MarsdenLR 6286 , the learned High Court Judge directed himself that the appellant must establish a strong case based on affidavit evidence. His Lordship referred to the basic argument of the appellant, ie that by representing the IC before the DC and at the same time representing the MIA in the judicial review proceedings and DAB, STSP would be "engaged pre-emptively with members of the DC and DAB on matters relating to NYH- 1 and NYH-2". He found that the affidavit of the Executive Director of the Surveillance & Enforcement Division of MIA, Dato Hj. Muhamad Redzuan bin Abdullah contradicted this contention. Dato Hj. Muhamad Redzuan bin Abdullah who affirmed