JUDGMENT

Ismail Brahim JCA:

Grounds of Decision

[1] This is an appeal against the whole of the decision of the High Court given on 20 January 2022, dismissing the Amended Originating Summons (Encl 103) dated 7 September 2020 with costs of RM5,000.00.

[2] Encl 103 ("OS") was the Appellant's appeal to the High Court against the whole of the decision of the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") given on 18 July 2020 under s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 ("LPA"), dismissing the Appellant's complaint No DC/16/0938.

[3] After hearing the oral submissions of the parties and considering the written submissions and the ROA, we dismissed the present appeal primarily on the second point of Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent, which we will refer to later in this judgment.

The Background Facts

[4] To appreciate the facts that led to the present appeal, it is necessary to set out the actions that led to the OS in the High Court , which resulted in the present appeal.

Initial Dispute and High Court Suit (Suit 1333)

[5] The Appellant, Ong Yew Teik, was the founder and shareholder of Euroceramic Technologies Company Limited ("ECT").

[6] In November 2006, the Appellant transferred his shares in ECT to Dato' Kamal Y.P Tan ("Kamal") through a tripartite agreement. It was contended that Kamal acknowledged a debt of RM8,018,225.00 to the Appellant for this transfer, which was due by 31 March 2007.

[7] Kamal subsequently failed to pay this sum.

[8] Consequently, on 19 November 2007, the Appellant commenced Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No: S5-22-1333/2007 ("Suit 1333") against Kamal to recover the debt.

[9] The Respondent, Yee Teck Fah, a practising advocate and solicitor at Yee Teck Fah & Co, was appointed by Dato' Kamal to defend and counterclaim against the Appellant in Suit 1333. It is important to note that no solicitor-client relationship existed between the Respondent and the Appellant.

[10] During Suit 1333, the Respondent drafted affidavits for Kong Ah Choo, Edward Mosses Julius Josephath, and Law Swee Haw (collectively, "Deponents"), who were former employees and shareholders of ECT. These affidavits, affirmed on 12 February 2008, stated that the Appellant was not a shareholder of ECT. The Appellant refers to these as "False Affidavits".

[11] The Appellant alleges that the Respondent drafted these affidavits based solely on Kamal's instructions, despite having contradictory documents like statutory declarations and a shareholder agreement from 2006. The Appellant further claims the Respondent drafted and filed these affidavits without directly communicating with the Deponents, explaining the contents, verifying their truthfulness, or allowing them to read the contents.

[12] It was further contended that the Respondent admitted to the Disciplinary Committee ("DC") that he did not interview the Deponents and relied on Kamal to verify the contents and arrange for affirmation. The Deponents later stated they were pressured by Kamal to sign documents without full awareness of or explanation of the contents.

[13] On 11 August 2016, the High Court in Suit 1333 dismissed the Appellant's claim and allowed Kamal's counterclaim.

Appeals in Suit 1333

[14] The Appellant appealed the High Court 's decision in Suit 1333 to the Court of Appeal (Civil Appeal No W-02(W)-1694-09/2016).

[15] On 19 January 2019, the Court of Appeal, by a majority decision, allowed the Appellant's appeal, setting aside the High Court 's decision.

[16] Kamal's subsequent applications for leave to appeal and a stay of execution to the Federal Court were dismissed in July 2019, and a review application was also dismissed on 23 November 2020.

Complaint to the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (DB)

[17] On 7 December 2016, the Appellant and the Deponents lodged Complaint No DC/16/0938 with the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board ("DB") against the Respondent.

[18] The complaint related to various acts of misconduct, including the dr