The court ruled that the six-year limitation under s 99(3A) of the Legal Profession Act is non-issue, as inquiry initiated by the Disciplinary Board was timely and no grounds for injunction against proceedings. The court upheld the need for due process in disciplinary matters.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid J:

Introduction

[1] On 6 April 2021, the plaintiff filed an Originating Summons (encl 1) primarily seeking for:

a. declaratory reliefs; and

b. a permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendants either by themselves and/or through their servants and/or their agents from proceeding any disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff.

[2] The prayers in encl 1 are as follows:

"1. That this Honourable Court decrees and issues a declaration as follows:

a) That the right of action under s 99(3A) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) accrued on 4 November 2014 being the date of the alleged event;

b) The inquiry scheduled for hearing on 19 April 2021 before the 3rd defendant is the first inquiry on the complaint by 2nd defendant by virtue of s 103A of the LPA ;

c) That pursuant to s 99(3A) of the LPA , the limitation period of six years from 4 November 2014 has already been set in and the 3rd defendant is estopped or barred from proceeding with any inquiry on the complaint via the 3rd defendant;

d) That an email dated 19 December 2014 from Advisory Board to the 2nd defendant complaining about the conduct of a hearing dated 4 November 2014 is the complaint made against the plaintiff under s 100(1) of the LPA ;

e) That a letter dated 14 December 2015 by the 1st defendant is not a complaint under s 100(1) of the LPA and of no effect against the plaintiff;

f) That the findings of guilt and/or misconduct in the letter dated 14 December 2015 made prematurely by the 1st defendant and executed by the then, President of the 1st defendant was a blatant act of bias, abuse of power and also abuse of process that amounts to a transgression of the plaintiff's right to a fair hearing under art 5 of Federal Constitution ( FC );

g) That the act of convening an inquiry by the 3rd defendant on the appointment by the 2nd defendant at this juncture is illegal, void and of no effect as there has been a breach of mandatory provision of s 103B(1) of the LPA ;

h) That there has been a violation of art 5 of the FC by the act of the 2nd and 3rd defendant convening the inquiry, not in accordance with the law, which has the effect of jeopardising the plaintiff's rights to livelihood and therefore unconstitutional;

i) That there has been a violation of art 8 of the FC by the act of the 2nd and 3rd defendant convening the inquiry not in accordance with the law, as the plaintiff was deprived from the rights of equality with the rights of another class of people who are also subjected to the disciplinary proceedings under the same Act but was done in accordance with the law;

j) That the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff were therefore illegal, null and void;

2. An interim injunction be and is hereby granted to restrain the 2nd and 3rd defendant from proceeding with any disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff pending the outcome of the plaintiff's Originating Summons.

3. A permanent injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd defendant either by themselves and/or through their servants and/or their agents from proceeding with any disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff due to lapse of time.

4. Further, and/or in the alternative, that all such further disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff stay pending the outcome of the plaintiff's Originating Summons

5. That no order in relation to cost is made in relation to this Originating Summons; and

6. For any other reliefs and/or orders deemed fit by this Honourable Court. "

Background Facts

[3] The plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and a member of the 1st defendant.

[4] The 1st defendant is a professional body that regulates the profession of lawyers in Peninsular Malaysia. The 1st defendant manages the affair and executions of the Malaysian Bar under the LPA .

[5] The 2nd defendant is the Disciplinary Board of Malaysian Bar.

[6] The 3rd defendant is the Disciplinary Committee of Malaysian Bar.

[7] On