FEDERAL COURT PUTRAJAYA
MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA – Appellant
Versus
SYED AHMAD IMDADZ SAID ABAS & ANOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the legal framework and principles. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 29) |
| 2. factual background of the disciplinary case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. interpretation of s 103d(4) lpa. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 4. court's decision on the necessity of hearing. (Para 30) |
[1] The appeal before us centres on the application of s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ), that is, whether an advocate and solicitor should be given the opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Board (DB) makes an order that is likely to be adverse against him if the DB intends to impose a greater or lesser penalty or punishment than that recommended by the Disciplinary Committee (DC).
[2] The questions of law for our determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the 1st respondent (Syed) needs to be given the opportunity to be heard under s 103D(4) of the LPA when the DB has already reduced his penalty or punishment; and
(ii) Whether the word "adverse" under s 103D(4) of the LPA should be read in the context of "greater or lesser" under s 103D(2) of the .
[3] On 10 April 2023 after having
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.