The court emphasized that special circumstances must be shown to grant a stay of execution, and the merits of the underlying case are not relevant in such determinations.

Introduction

[1] This is an application by the Plaintiff by way of Notice of Application (encl 4) dated 1 July 2022 for a Stay of Execution on the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board's (Disciplinary Board) Order which was issued on 16 June 2022 to strike off the Plaintiff from the rolls of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya and requires the Plaintiff to pay the 1st Defendant an amount of RM3,076,804.00 pending the appeal against the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (Enclosure 1).

[2] On 6 July 2022, this Honourable Court granted an ad interim stay (encl 11) pending disposal of encl 4.

[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the Plaintiff's application (Enclosure 4). The rationale for my decision is provided below.

Background Facts

[4] The background facts of this application are predominantly undisputed. The narration of the background facts drawn from the cause papers and submissions by parties can be encapsulated as follows:

4.1 On 2 May 2018, the 1st Defendant (Complainant) lodged a Complaint with the Disciplinary Board against the Plaintiff. The basis for this Complaint was that the Plaintiff had been dishonest or fraudulent in carrying out his responsibilities as the solicitor for his client. Specifically, this client was the vendor and registered owner of a parcel of land located at Lot No 17, Jalan Raja Chulan, Kuala Lumpur;

4.2 The subject matter of the Complaint pertains to a fraudulent land transaction that occurred in 2018, where the 1st Defendant was the purchaser and the Plaintiff acted on behalf of the vendor and registered owner;

4.3 The RM3,076,804.00 was deposited to the Plaintiff's firm to hold as stakeholder. It later transpired that the true owner of the land was deceased and the Plaintiff had no authority to represent his estate;

4.4 The Plaintiff, however, released the RM3,076,804.00 to the parties who were not the registered owner of the land;

4.5 On 16 June 2022, the Disciplinary Board has affirmed the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and made an Order (DB Order) that:

(a) The Plaintiff be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya to take effect 21 days from the date of the Order; and

(b) The Plaintiff to make restitution to the Complainant for the sum of RM3,076,804.00 (the said Sum) within 1 month from the date of the Order.

4.6 Dissatisfied with the said DB Order, the Plaintiff filed the said Appeal herein on 30 June 2022 and on 1 July 2022, the Plaintiff filed an application to stay the execution of the DB Order pending the disposal of the said Appeal;

4.7 On 5 July 2022, this Honourable Court granted an Ad Interim Order to stay the execution of the DB Order until 6 September 2022 pending the disposal of the Stay Application; and

4.8 On 6 September 2022, this Honourable Court allowed the Bar Council's Intervener's Application and the Hearing of the Stay Application was adjourned to 17 November 2022. The Ad Interim Order was also extended to 17 November 2022 pending the disposal of the Stay Application.

[5] The grounds of the application, as stated in the application are as follows:

5.1 The Disciplinary Board had by way of an Order dated 16 June 2022, which was only delivered to the Plaintiff's solicitor on 28 June 2022 by way of a letter dated 22 June 2022, ordered that the Plaintiff be struck off as an Advocates and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and the Plaintiff to make restitution to the 1st Defendant in the sum of RM3,076,804.00;

5.2 The Plaintiff had already filed an appeal (Originating Summons