Procedural compliance is essential in legal appeals; failure to meet specific requirements renders an originating summons defective and subject to dismissal.

The Factual Background

[1] The appeal before us emanates from the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court in dismissing the appellant's Originating Summons ("OS"). The OS was purportedly filed under O 7 r (2) of the Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC"). For context, the relevant part of the OS is reproduced here:

... atas pendengaran suatu permohonan oleh plaintif yang dalam perkara mengenai Rayuan (SELEPAS PERBICARAAN 10 Oktober 2020 dengan Pengadu Tidak Hadir ) DALAM LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA DI KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA COMPLAINT NO: DB/9/0970.

[2] Although the appellant did not say it expressly in the body of the OS, the learned High Court Judge comprehended that the appellant was challenging the order made by the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") under s 100(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (" LPA ") dated 10 October 2020. The DB Order was, in essence, a dismissal of the appellant's complaint against the respondents who are practicing advocates and solicitors in the name and style of Messrs M Sujata & Associates ("the Firm").

The Appellant's Complaint To The DB

[3] The appellant's complaint against the respondents, as can be distilled from the "Borang Aduan", is as follows:

M Sujata & Associates melaksanakan kebanyakan kesalahan di Malaysia semua perceraian yang menyebabkan orang bukan beragama Islam hendaklah dilakukan mengikut peruntukan di bawah Akta Memperbaharui Undang- Undang (Perkahwinan dan Perceraian) 1976 [Akta 164].

The details of the Complaint against the Firm can be summarised as follows:

(a) The Firm committed several errors relating to divorce proceedings.

(b) The Firm acted for both the developer and the house owner.

(c) In Civil Suit No: BA-23NCVC-36-12/2017 ("the Defamation Suit"), the Firm acted for both parties.

(d) The Firm failed to give advice as to why all the appellant's suits at the Small Claims Court were dismissed. The Firm had purportedly failed to pay the appellant a sum of RM1,000.00 and RM400.00 for each claim at the Small Claims Court.

(e) The Firm received cheques as payment for the defects from the developer, in respect of the property owned by Encik Lim ("the said property"), but did not forward the same to the appellant.

The Respondents' Response Under Section 100 (1)(b) Of The LPA

[4] Pursuant to the Complaint, the DB wrote to the respondents on 19 February 2020 requesting them to furnish their written explanation as provided under s 100(1)(b) of the LPA .

[5] In their written explanation, the respondents stated the following.

On The Commission Of Errors In The Divorce Proceedings

[6] According to the respondents, the Firm had never acted for the appellant. On the contrary, it was the appellant's former husband, Encik Lee Hock Teong, who engaged the Firm in filing a petition to divorce the appellant. The appellant failed to attend the hearing of the divorce petition fixed on 24 June 2019. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the appellant and decree nisi was granted by the Court. On the same day, the decree was made absolute.

[7] Aggrieved by the said orders made by the Shah Alam High Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. According to the respondents, the appellant had also lodged a police report against her solicitors and the trial Judge having conducted the matter.

[8] The respondents' written explanation was that the appellant should have let the appeal take its c