JUDGMENT

Azimah Omar JCA:

A. Introduction

[1] The Appeal before us primarily concerns technical issues which directly impugn the competency of this very Appeal before us against the decision of the High Court of which by the operation of a specific statute, should be regarded as final and falls within the class of matters which are non-appealable under s 68(1)(d) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1967 ("CJA").

[2] At the heart of the Appeal proper, this is Dr Geoffrey Alan Williams' ("the Appellant") appeal against the decision of the Learned High Court Judge ("Learned Judge") for dismissing the Appellant's Originating Summons (filed pursuant to s 31(1) of the Medical Act 1971 ("MA 1971"))("Appellant's Appeal-OS") in appealing against the Malaysian Medical Council's ("MMC/2nd Respondent") decision to dismiss the Appellant's complaint against Dr Tikfu Gee ("1st Respondent") regarding an alleged disciplinary offence (or medical misconduct) in the 1st Respondent's treatment of the Appellant's friend, one Nur Muhammad Tajrid bin Zahalan ("patient Tajrid") on 18 July 2015. The Learned Judge's dismissal of the Appellant's Appeal-OS was also premised on a technical point on the competency of the Appeal-OS (from the aspect of the Appellant's lack of capacity or locus standi and right to Appeal).

[3] From the outset, we are beckoned to highlight that the Appellant was under a gross misunderstanding of the grievance procedures laid down under Part IV of the MA 1971 which in actuality was an appellate jurisdiction exclusively available only to registered practitioners (as aggrieved persons) in the instance where the MMC had meted out an order ("Disciplinary Order") to reprimand such registered practitioner. The Appeals procedures under Part IV of the MA 1971, by no means whatsoever, were exercisable by a failed complainant who was aggrieved by the MMC's dismissal of his or her complaint(s). The proper remedy that the Appellant (as a failed complainant) should have sought was for a Judicial Review to quash the decision of the MMC (see Federal Court in Dr Lourdes Dava Raj Curuz Durai Raj v. Dr Milton Lum Siew Wah & Anor; [2020] 5 MLJ 185; [2020] 9 CLJ 192; [2020] 6 AMR 429).

[4] The second technical issue arose following the 2nd Respondent's Motion to strike out the Appeal before us on the premise of incompetency due to the finality and non-appealability of the Learned Judge's decision by the statutory operation and force of s 31(2) of the MA 1971 which was still in force and had not yet been repealed during the material time of the commission of the 1st Respondent's alleged disciplinary offence (or misconduct). The 2nd Respondent's Motion to strike out was dismissed on 29 January 2024 without prejudice to the 2nd Respondent's contention on the competency of the Appeal and the applicability of the saving or transitional provision of s 42(5) of the Medical (Amendment) Act 2012 ("MAA 2012").

[5] Thus, by and large, the substantive issue of merit in the Appellant's Appeal-OS before the High Court was never determined (nor did the substantive issue of merit of the Appellant's Appeal-OS come before us for our determination). Thus, it is not before us to delve into the substance and merits of the Appellant's complaint against the Respondents. If we are minded to allow the Appeal, the limited scope of the Appeal would only allow us to remit the case back to the High Court for Hearing on merits.

[6] In any case, it is only apt for us to first appreciate and lay down the factual matrix that had culminated in the Appeal before us.

B. Factual Background

[7] For a swift and easy appreciation of the underlying facts we have prepared Table A below:

TABLE A
DATE	EVENT
18 July 2015	Alleged occurrence of the alleged misconduct in the 1st Respondent's treatment of Patient Tajrid.
16 November 2016	The Appellant (not Patient Tajrid) lodged a formal complaint against the 1st Respondent to the MMC and 11 other registered practitioners.
1 July 2017	The MAA 2012 came into f