Suriyadi JCA (delivering judgment of the court)

[1]The appeal before us was dismissed with costs, followed by the consequential orders that the order of the High Court be affirmed, and the deposit ordered towards account of taxed costs.

[2]We now state the background and facts of the case. This was an appeal by the defendants (the appellants) against the High Court’s decision in allowing the plaintiff’s (the respondent) application to disqualify M/s Lee Hishamuddin Allen & Gledhill (‘the firm’) from acting for the appellants in this action. The respondent was a partner in a firm known as KPMG, with 27 appellants being individuals who were profit sharing partners. The 28th appellant was a private limited company and a wholly owned subsidiary of PSP Nominee Sdn Bhd.

[3]Prior to this, the respondent had instituted an action against the appellants for unlawfully and illegally excluding him from the partnership of KPMG, pursuant to an allegation of sexual misconduct and rape made by one female employee of the appellants against him. The respondent had contended that:

(a)the procedures, acts and conduct undertaken by the appellants in removing him from the partnership was unlawful and illega