Restoration to the Roll of advocates requires strict scrutiny of the applicant's rehabilitation and proof of being a fit and proper person after disbarment.

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellant against of the decision of the High Court of Kuala Terengganu dated 13th April 2015 in allowing the Respondent's application for restoration to the Roll as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya under s 107(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ).

[2] The instant appeal was heard on 2nd June 2016 wherein we had unanimously allowed the appeal with no order as to costs. We append below our grounds for doing so. We will refer the parties as they were described in the High Court.

Brief Facts Gemaine To The Appeal

[3] The facts are elucidated from the various affidavits, the judgment of the learned High Court Judge and the written submissions of respective parties. The salient facts as alluded to by the respective parties in their written submissions are adopted herein with and / or without modifications.

[4] The Plaintiff was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya on 26th September 1987. The Plaintiff was practicing as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya under the name and style of Messrs Rushdi & Co as a sole proprietor.

[5] On 12th April 2007 there were complaints lodged against the Plaintiff pertaining to certain misconduct committed with regards to the execution of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) over a housing development project in Gombak, Selangor. The circumstances of the Plaintiff's disbarment can be examined in the Report prepared by the Defendant dated 12th November 2014 (see Exh "WTS-1"at pp 46 to 64 at Part B of Appeal Record Jilid 2).

[6] Based on an inquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee (DC) the DC found as follows:

(a) The act of the Plaintiff in backdating the 2nd SPA to evade the operation of the amendments to the Housing Development Act 1966 was wrongful. The Plaintiff ought to have done his own research on the law applicable at the material time.

(b) The Plaintiff had committed misconduct by preparing and witnessing two SPAs for two different parties with respect to the same property. The complainant in question retained the Plaintiff as his solicitor and gave him his full trust and confidence to execute the 1st SPA.

(c) The Plaintiff had unlawfully profited by receiving two separate legal fees in respect of the same property.

(d) More than 30 purchasers of the Project were affected by the wrongful act of the Plaintiff. Most of these purchasers are government servants who had to service the loans granted by their financiers.

(e) The act of the Plaintiff in preparing and witnessing the execution of the SPAs by the same legal firm over the same property where there was earlier agreement would amount to a gross misconduct.

(f) In the case involving the Plaintiff, 10 complaints were lodged with the Disciplinary Board which facts were similar in nature. About 30 purchasers were affected by the wrongful act of the Plaintiff.

(g) There was evidence of misconduct committed by the Plaintiff, thus affecting the integrity and perception of the public towards the members of the legal profession.

(h) There were no mitigating factors to condone the alleged misconduct committed by the Plaintiff. As the Plaintiff was a senior member of the profession, having been admitted to the Bar in 1988, he is expected by the legal profession to maintain a high standard in the profession and to uphold the dignity and reputation of the legal profession.

[7] The DC having considered the above facts then recommended to the Disciplinary Board that the Plaintiff be disbarred and struck off the Roll of Advocates and Soli