Restoration to the Roll of Advocates requires clear evidence of genuine repentance and rehabilitation, which the plaintiff failed to demonstrate.

JUDGMENT

Amarjeet Singh Serjit Singh J:

Introduction

[1] On 9 September 2011, the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("the Board"), established under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (" LPA "), ordered that the plaintiff, Bala Subramaniam a/l Sengodan be struck off from the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court of Malaya ("the Roll"). The order also directed that the plaintiff refund the complainant the sum of RM250,000.00 within three months from the date of the order.

[2] The plaintiff did not accept the decision and appealed to this Court. The appeal was dismissed and the plaintiff's subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal against the dismissal was also dismissed on 26 November 2014.

[3] On 7 December 2022, the plaintiff filed the present originating summons under subsection 107(1) of the LPA seeking an order that the Registrar of the High Court of Malaya restore his name to the Roll. On 22 August 2023, Idismissed the originating summons. My reasons are as follows.

Facts Leading To Being Struck Off The Rolls

[4] In applications ofrestoration to the Roll, the Bar Council, as the statutory defendant to such applications, is required by subsection 107(3) of the LPA to place before this Court a report which must contain copies of the record of any proceedings as the result of which the name of the advocate and solicitor was struck off the Roll and a statement of any facts which have occurred since the striking out which in the opinion of the Bar Council or any member of it are relevant to be considered or to be investigated in connection with the application.

[5] The material placed before me by the Bar Council revealed that the plaintiff before his removal from the Roll, practiced as an advocate and solicitor under the name and in the style of M/s SBS Maniam, Nohairi & Azizan ("the Firm"). The Firm was appointed by the one Ahmad Sidique bin Abdul Latif ("the complainant") in his capacity as the director of Teratak Kristal Sdn Bhd ("the Company") to act as counsel in the Company's application to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution pending appeal in respect of applications No B-02(IM)-2723-2009 and B-02(IM)-2057-2009 between the Company and Malaysia Airports (Sepang) Sdn Bhd. In addition, the complainant also in his capacity as director of Cheri Catering Sdn Bhd instructed the plaintiff to act for Cheri Catering Sdn Bhd in the Shah Alam Sessions Court Suit No 52-206-2010 commenced by Malaysia Airports Niaga Sdn Bhd.

[6] Pending the hearing of the aforesaid applications for a stay of execution, the complainant in a letter dated 2 March 2010 enclosed a cheque for the sum of RM250,000.00 payable to the Firm as a stakeholder for the purpose of the applications in the event the Court orders that security is to be furnished by the Company.

[7] The stay of execution applications were eventually refused by the Court of Appeal and the complainant by a letter dated 7 June 2010, sought the return of the sum that was held by the Firm as stakeholders. The plaintiff refused to return the monies on the premise that the same were to be utilised as the Firm's legal fees. Dissatisfied, the complainant lodged a complaint against the plaintiff to the Board. The Board convened a Disciplinary Committee to inquire into the complaint. The Disciplinary Committee found the plaintiff guilty of misconduct and recommended that the plaintiff be struck off the Roll.On 9 September 2011, the Board agreed with the recommendation and ordered that the plaintiff be struck off the Roll and an order directing the plaintiff to return the sum of RM250,000.00 to the complainant.

[8] The report of the Bar Council revealed the finding that the RM250,000.00 was paid into the Firm's solicitor's client account as a stakeholder and that the plaintiff never issued an invoice or bill for legal services for the sum or any part thereof. The plaintiff did not give any satisfactory explanation for the refusal to return the said monies to the complainant.

[9] T