The Disciplinary Committee must address jurisdictional challenges before proceeding with inquiries; failure to do so violates procedural fairness under Section 103EA(4) of the Legal Profession Act.

Introduction

[1] The Applicant had on 11 January 2023 filed an application by way of Originating Summons (OS) (encl 1) seeking inter alia the following orders:

1.1 a declaration that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents' jurisdiction and power to inquire into the Compliant has lapsed;

1.2 an order that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents be prohibited from further inquiring into the Complaint;

1.3 an order that the inquiry into the Complaint be suspended pending the disposal of this OS;

1.4 an order for such other relief as deemed fit; and

1.5 an order that the costs of and incidental to this OS be provided for.

[2] After the hearing, I allowed prayer 1.2 of the Applicant's OS (Enclosure 1). This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[3] The facts gathered from the cause papers and submission of the Applicant can be summarized as follows:

3.1 The Applicant was instructed by Madam Hoo Yee Zhen regarding a medico-legal incident involving her husband Mr Heng Weng Lee who had died on 22 October 2012 after receiving treatment at Mahkota Medical Centre, Malacca (MMC).

3.2 Following instructions from the client, the Applicant engaged the services of Mr P S Ranjan and his firm Messrs P S Ranjan & Co of Kuala Lumpur to provide senior Counsel's services in the field of medico-legal litigation.

3.3 The Applicant on behalf of his client on 14 July 2014 brought a medical negligence claim against MMC and 4 doctors in the Malacca Sessions Court.

3.4 The case commenced and thereafter parties to the action had entered into a consent order for settlement of the claim on 30 November 2015.

3.5 The Applicant had billed his client progressively, and a total of 3 interim bills were delivered and paid for by the client.

3.6 The matter having been concluded by consent order, a final bill for the balance of fees of RM91,500.00 was issued to the client, which included the legal charges to be paid to Messrs P S Ranjan & Co

3.7 In between, the 5th Respondent (Complainant in the Disciplinary Proceedings), who was the brother of the deceased, wrote querying various matters and alluding to a "contingency fee" arrangement, to which the Applicant had replied, clearly and unequivocally stating that he would not agree to contingency fee arrangements which are illegal.

3.8 According to the Applicant, the complainant's accusation that he had entered into a contingency fee agreement is false. The Applicant also said that the Complainant's accusation that he had overcharged is also false because his client had not raised any objections and had in fact authorized him to deduct his costs and to pay the balance of the judgment sum into her bank account.

3.9 Likewise, there was no request for the Applicant's bill to be taxed under the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) and Rules of Court 2012 (ROC) as a Solicitors - Client bill. The client of the Applicant herself had accepted the fee arrangement.

3.10 However, the Disciplinary Board (1st Respondent) (DB) received a complaint from the 5th Respondent vide letter dated 27 April 2016 and the Applicant had given his explanation on 12 July 2016.

3.11 The DB wrote to the Applicant on 1 November 2016 to inform him that a Disciplinary Committee (DC) will be appointed.

3.12 On 9 December 2016 the 1st Respondent wrote to the Applicant to say that a DC comprising Mr Ho Wee Keong and 2 others had been appointed to inquire into the complaint.

3.13 On 19 December 2016, the Applican's solicitors, Messrs Bastian Vendargon wrote to the 1st Respondent to state that there was a conflict of interest and a potential bias involving