Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2486
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
ONG KEH KEONG – Appellant
Versus
TULASI AYAOO; MAJLIS PEGUAM (INTERVENER) (ENCL 1) – Respondent
[Beginner Proposal No: WA-17D-23-07/2023]
The imposition of disciplinary sanctions on legal practitioners must align with established standards and practices, particularly concerning employment relationships and procedural fairness.
Headnote:(A) Legal Profession Act 1976 - Section 103D - Disciplinary action against legal practitioners - Appellant challenged the fine imposed by the Disciplinary Board for misconduct in pursuing compensation from a chambering pupil - Court affirmed the disciplinary findings and the imposition of a RM5,000.00 fine, stating they were not manifestly excessive and supported by evidence - Procedural compliance and natural justice were upheld. (Paras 6 to 44)
(B) Employment Law - Determination of employee status - The court confirmed that a Letter of Offer constituted an employment contract due to the degree of control exercised by the appellant over the respondent, reaffirming standards for determining employer-employee relationships. (Paras 7.1 to 7.6)
(C) Natural Justice - No breach found - Claims of bias and insufficient procedural documentation were dismissed as the appellant failed to timely raise such issues or demonstrate an injustice. (Paras 24 to 36)
(D) Grounds of Appeal - The court examined various grounds regarding errors in law, procedural non-compliance, and natural justice, all found to be without merit. (Paras 5.1 to 5.4)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application filed to challenge disciplinary order. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. grounds of appeal regarding errors of fact or law. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. findings about employer-employee relationship. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. procedural compliance in report submission. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. issues of bias and natural justice. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. assessment of punishment severity. (Para 38 , 39 , 42) |
| 7. conclusion and dismissal of appeal. (Para 44) |
Introduction
[1] The appellant had on 14 July 2023 filed an application by way of Originating Motion (OM) (Enel. 1) seeking inter alia, the following orders:
a) Suatu perintah untuk mengenepikan atau membatalkan keseluruhan Perintah bertarikh 24 Jun 2023 yang dikeluarkan oleh Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam ("Disciplinary Board") ("DB") di bawah s 103D Akta Profesion Perundangan 1976 ("Perintah Tersebut") yang telah menghukum Perayu dengan denda sebanyak RM5,000.00 yang perlu dibayar dalam masa 1 bulan daripada tarikh Perintah Tersebut;
b) Suatu perintah untuk menggantung kesemua bentuk perlaksanaan Perintah Tersebut sehingga keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, dalam permohonan ini diberikan;
c) Suatu perintah supaya DB dan/atau Majlis Peguam samada dengan sendirinya atau melalui agen, wakil atau melalui pengkhidmat atau sebaliknya, tidak menerbitkan, mempamerkan, mengedarkan atau mencetak dalam apa jua cara dan bentuk, kesan atau hukuman yang dikenakan ke atas Perayu dalam Perintah Tersebut sehingga keputusan Mahkamah Yang Mulia ini, dalam permohonan ini diberikan;
d) Kos; dan
e) Lain-lain relief atau perintah yang difikirkan adil dan suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah yang Mulia ini.
[2] In gist, the appellant filed the OM to set aside the Order of the Disciplinary Board (DB) under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ( LPA ) dated 24 June 2023 via Complaint No. DC/18/0102 which imposed a fine of RM5,000.00 on the appellant (DB Order).
[3] After the hearing, I dismissed the appellant's OM (Enel. 1). This judgment contains the full reasons for my decision.
Salient Facts
[4] The salient facts of this case, gathered from the cause papers and submissions of the parties, are largely undisputed and can be summarized as follows:
4.1 In early January 2018, the appellant's law firm advertised on the Bar Council website, among other things, that there was a vacancy for students/pupils to undergo chambering.
4.2 On 3 January 2018, the respondent applied for a chambering position by sending her application via email to the appellant's firm.
4.3 Thereafter, the appellant called the respondent for an interview and after a written and oral question-and-answer interview session, on 15 January 2018, the appellant issued a Letter of Offer, offering the respondent a chambering position in the appellant's law firm. The said letter was then executed by the respondent as an acceptance of the offer.
4.4 On 15 January 2018, the respondent commenced her appointment as a chambering student at the appellant's law firm office until 17 January 2018.
4.5 On 18 January 2018, the respondent suddenly did not turn up at the appellant's law firm and the respondent was absent on 19 January 2018.
4.6 On 19 January 2018, the respondent sent WhatsApp messages to the appellant indicating the respondent's intention to quit and terminate her pupillage.
4.7 The appellant then replied stating that pursuant to the Letter of Offer, the respondent has to pay 2 months allowance in the sum of RM3,600.00 as compensation if she wishes to resign immediately.
4.8 The respondent requested for the 2 monthly allowance to be paid in 2 installments on 10 February 2018 and 10 March 2018 respectively. The appellant allowed the request.
4.9 However, the respondent defaulted in the instalment payment. On 15 February 2018, the appellant issued a letter of demand to the respondent via email demanding payment of RM3,600.00.
4.10 On 21 February 2018, the respondent requested for an extension of time to make the payment of RM3,60
