Judicial officers can be represented by the Attorney-General in legal proceedings, affirming their duties performed in an official capacity, ensuring adherence to the principle of separation of powers.

GROUNDS OF ECISION

[In respect of Enclosure 6]

INTRODUCTION

[1]Enclosure 6 is an application by the Plaintiff for an order that the Defendants’ Memorandum of Appearance filed by the Federal Attorney-General’s Chambers be set aside and/or struck off or that the purported representation of the Defendants by the Federal Attorney-General’s Chambers be struck out or deleted under Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court 2012 [“ ROC 2012”]

[2]The grounds of the above Notice of Application are :

[i]That the 1^st Defendant is an independent arm established under the constitution on the principle of separation of powers of [1] the legislative, [2] the judiciary and [3] the executive and therefore the representation by the Federal Attorney-General’s Chambers is unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional;

[ii]That the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants are not public servants or public employees and they do not come under the cognizance of the Public Services Commission and the Rules and Regulations thereto;

[iii]The 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants hold office under contract in their personal capacities and are sued in their personal capacities and therefore they cannot be represented by the Federal Attorney-General’s Chambers; and

[iv]Being independent contractees, the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants will be beholden or seen to be beholden to the executive arm of the Government of Malaysia if so represented and therefore the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants representation by the Federal Attorney is a nullity, null and void and ultra vires the Constitution and not in accordance with the law

BACKGROUND

[3]In his Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff’s claims for the following orders and reliefs:-

[i]An Order that High Court Suit No.MYY-22-157-2013 be reinstated and to be reverted back to the High Court for hearing on its merits and on quantum meruit or on such terms as the High Court deems fit and just;

[ii]A declaration that the said Order dated the 14.08.2014 in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No.Q-02(IM)-188-01/2014 is a nullity, null and void or void ab initio on the ground that it is unlawful being a deprivation or denial of access to the Courts, illegal and against public policy and is ultra vires the constitution, arbitrary and oppressive and a gross miscarriage of justice or in breach of established elementary rules of natural justice and further, with no reason given and without the written Grounds of Decision;

[iii]A declaration that the 2^nd Defendant acted in bad faith or was reckless or did not in good faith believe that she had jurisdiction to grant the said Order with no reason or Grounds of Decision given or for her refusal and inability to furnish the Grounds of Decision;

[iv]A declaration that the 3^rd Defendant acted in bad faith or was reckless or did not in good faith believe that she had had jurisdiction to grant the said Order with no reason or Grounds of Decision given or for her refusal and inability to furnish the Grounds of Decision;

[v]A declaration the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants are unfit to be judges on the grounds of bad faith, recklessness or absence of good faith and for their refusal to discharge their duties to give reasons or to furnish their reasoned Judgment for the said Order.

[4]The Plaintiff’s claim herein arose out of a matter in which he was the Plaintiff in Miri High Court Suit No. MYY-22-15/7-2013 [“the said 2013 Suit”] between his law firm, Advocates v. Ting Sie Chung @ Ting Sieh Chung and his appeal to the Court of Appeal, was struck out by an Order of the Court of Appeal [“the said Court of Appeal Order’] in Civil Appeal No. Q— 02(IM)-188-01/2014 on the 14.08.2014.

[5]The said Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision whereby the Defendant/Appellant’s interlocutory Noti