Mohd Saari Yusoff JCA:

The appellant appealed against the decision of Justice Ariffin Zakaria who dismissed her application for the following reliefs:

a) A declaration the defendant's decision on 12.11.2001 in unilaterally revoking the plaintiff's results in July 2001 Certificate of Legal Practice Examination (the said examination) is in violation of the established rules of natural justice and fair play;

b) A declaration the decision making process resorted by the defendant in annulling the plaintiff's July 2001 results in the said examination is fatally flawed thereby meriting the Honourable Court's interference and indulgence to review and restore the said results;

c) A declaration the plaintiff was entitled to a legitimate expectation of being heard before the defendant annulled the July 2001 results in the said examination;

d) A declaration the defendant is estopped from annulling the July 2001.

e) A declaration the decision the defendant made on 27.11.2001 annulling the plaintiffs results in the said examination is null and void, of no consequence, inoperative and not on the authority of a valid or legal power;

f) A declaration the communication to the plaintiff by the defendant on 27.11.2001 that she had failed the July, 2001 CLP examination is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of law and ought to be quashed and set aside;

g) An order the defendant be directed to declare its decision on 27.11.2001 that the plaintiff had failed the July, 2001 CLP examination is unlawful, inoperative and of no consequences;

h) An order the defendant be directed to declare the July, 2001 results in the said examination are lawful and valid;

i) Costs; and

j) Any further or other relief deemed fit and proper by the Honourable Court.

Apart from appellant, the said decision was also binding on 14 other plaintiffs who made similar requests to have their original examination result reinstated.

Background

The appellant sat for the said examination. The respondent is a Qualifying Board established under s. 4 LPA 1976 ("the Act") with function to provide courses of instruction and to conduct examinations. The said examination was conducted by the respondent pursuant to the said function.

On 13 September 2001, respondent announced the said examination result followed by issuing of Certificate of Legal Practice (exh. CKC1) dated 13 September 2001 which showed that the appellant had a clear pass. However, subsequently the respondent nullified the said examination result followed by issuing of another certificate (exh. CKC2) dated 27 November 2001 which showed that the appellant had failed the said examination.

Under normal procedure, the papers for CLP examination are marked in accordance with the scheme of marks (exh. C). Initially, the papers are examined by an examiner to be followed by re-examination by another examiner. Eventually, the marks are entered into a master list report (the master list) prepared by the director. After the abovementioned steps are taken, the director would table the master list for approval by the respondent.

Thus, in the present case, the master list which contained the result of the said examination was tabled and approved by the respondent. On 10 November 2001 or thereabout complaint was received about the alleged leakage of question papers relating to the said examination and this prompted the respondent to investigate. On the outcome of the investigation, the respondent was satisfied that the said examination and October 2001 examination had been compromised. Then on 12 November 2001, the respondent nullified the result of both examinations.

In the case of appellant, based on her answer scripts (exh. F), she actually failed two papers namely the civil procedure and criminal procedure. In the result, she failed the said examination.

Issues for determination may be crystallised as follows:

i) preliminary issue as to whether the reliefs prayed for fall within the scope of s. 26 LPA 1976;

ii) ad