Judgment of the Court

Introduction

1. There are five appeals before us. They arose from two civil suits,

S2-23-93-99 (the first suit) and S2-23-33-00 (the second suit).

2. Both suits were filed by the Respondent herein as plaintiff. But in this

Judgment he will be referred throughout as the Respondent. The

defendants in the respective suits are the Appellants herein and will

collectively be referred to as such where appropriate in this Judgment.

Otherwise the Appellants will be referred to by their respective

names.

6

3.As the background facts and events of these appeals are substantially

interrelated we propose to briefly state them first before dealing with

the issues and arguments.

The Parties;

4. In the first suit the first Appellant is the Bar Council, the second

Appellant was the former Chairman of the Bar Council being sued on

behalf of all the Executive Committee members of the Bar Council

including himself while the third Appellant is the Malaysian Bar. The

first and third Appellants are bodies established under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (the LPA).

5. The Respondent is a member of the Malaysian Bar paying an annual

subscription fee of RM350.00 and such further sums as may be

required for the various funds and projects of the Bar Council. Section

43 of the LPA made membership to the Malaysian Bar obligatory for

anyone wishing to be issued with annual practicing certificate.

7

6.In the second suit the first Appellant is the Malaysian Bar while the

other Appellants were formerly members of the Executive Committee

of the Bar Council.

Brief Backgrounds Of Events:

7.Raja Aziz the lead counsel for the Appellants in both suits briefly

summarized the object and causes of the suits:

(a) that in each of the action it sought 'to restrain the Bar Council,

Malaysia, from convening and holding an Extraordinary

General Meeting to discuss allegations of impropriety made

against the Chief Justice who was then in office';

(b) that in the first suit 'the allegations were made in an amended

defence filed in August 1999 in High Court Civil Suit No.

S2-23-43-1996'; and

(c) that in the second suit 'the allegations were similar, and they

were reported in the press on 31.05.2000, as having been made

8

by Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim, the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department'.

8. These appeals relate to the decisions of the same learned High Court

Judge in both suits.

9. In respect of the first suit the appeals are:

(a) W-02-75-04 (Appeal 75) which is against the judgment of the

learned Judge rendered on 10.11.2003 and effectively disposed

of;

(b) W-02-647-00 (Appeal 647) which is against the ruling of the

learned Judge allowing the application by the Respondent for

the trial of a preliminary issue pursuant to Order 33 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the Rules'); and

(c) W-02-780-00 (Appeal 780) which is against the dismissal by

the learned Judge of the preliminary objection on the issue of

secrecy of proceedings conducted by the Bar Council.

9

10. The first suit was triggered by the move of the Malaysian Bar acting

in concert with the Bar Council to call for an Extraordinary General

Meeting scheduled on 20.11.1999 at 10.00 a.m. at the Grand

Ballroom, Renaissance Hotel Kuala Lumpur. A notice dated

12.10.1999 ('the notice of 12.10.1999') containing a proposed

resolution of even date ('the proposed resolution of 12.10.1999') was

thus issued. The Respondent received a copy of the same. For

convenience, in this Judgment unless stated otherwise any reference to

'the proposed EGM' includes the aforementioned notice of

12.10.1999 and the proposed resolution of 12.10.1999.

11. The main purpose of the proposed EGM was to consider and to adopt

if approved the proposed resolution of 12.10.1999 which read: 'That

the Bar Council is to forthwith bring to the attention of the

appropriate authorities all relevant instances of controversy that have

undermined confidence in the Malaysian Judiciary and to do all that

is necessary to pursue the appointmen