GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JCA:

[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court dated 24 November 2014 in allowing the Respondent's application for restoration to the Roll as an advocate and solicitor of Malaya. The decision of the High Court was a unanimous decision by a panel of three judges pursuant to s 107(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA). The amendment to s 107 of the LPA in 2014 (the amendment came into force on 3 June 2014 vide PU(B) 262/2014) in which subsection 107(5) was added making this appeal before us in the Court of Appeal possible.

Brief Facts

[2] The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2.1 The Respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya around the year 1990 and was registered as a member of the Bar Council of Malaysia ('BC') bearing membership registration number BC/D/056. Thereafter, the Respondent began legal practice as a Legal Assistant in a firm in Penang and several other legal firms until early or the middle of 1993 when he opened his own solicitor's firm in the name and style of Dharshan Singh Nanua and Associates in Parit Buntar, Perak until sometime in the year 2000.

2.2 The Respondent had acted for one Mohd Meerah Bin Kader Myden ("Complainant") in the Civil Action No 73-24-94 in the Parit Buntar Magistrate Court.

2.3 The suit was settled out of Court for the sum of RM9000.00 which was paid in cheque, and the Respondent was to convert the cheque to cash for the Complainant.

2.4 However, the Respondent failed to release the RM9000.00 to the Complainant even after numerous attempts by the Complainant to contact the Respondent.

2.5 On 21 November 1995, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Board ("DB") on the ground that the Respondent had failed to release the sum of RM9000.00 being out of Court settlement in respect of the civil action.

2.6 On 17 April 2002, the Disciplinary Committee ("DC") was appointed. On the date of the hearing of the complaint on 6 June 2002, the DC found the Respondent in breach of s 94(3)(c) of the LPA. The DC in its report dated 6 June 2002 recommended that the Respondent be struck off the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors of the High Court in Malaya ("Roll") and he was struck off the Rolls on 11 October 2002.

2.7 Prior to the Respondent's disbarment between 1994 to 2000, there were 14 complaints made by various persons against the Respondents and the nature of the allegations was serious ranging from fraud, monetary dishonesty and gross disregard. While 8 complaints were dismissed, at least 3 complaints which were withdrawn and as such, there was no determination made in respect of the three complaints.

2.8 The Respondent was made a bankrupt by two separate bankruptcy orders on 4 November 1998 and 18 April 2001 and the two orders were set aside on 25 February 2014.

2.9 After the Respondent was struck off the Roll, there were two applicants (Goh Ah Bah and Goh Joo Or) who made an application to the Bar Council Compensation Fund and on September 2004, the Bar Council made a determination to pay out a total of RM80,532.41 to the two individuals.

2.10 On 3 March 2014, the Respondent filed the application to be reinstated to the Roll as an advocate and solicitor of the High Court in Malaya. On 24 November 2014 the High Court granted the order reinstating the Respondent to the Roll and hence this appeal.

2.11 It was only 6 months after the application for reinstatement did the Respondent make full settlement of the monies owing to the Bar Council Compensation Fund and the payment to the Complainant (Mohd Meerah bin Kader Myden).

High Court Decision

[3] The learned Judges, in allowing the Respondent's application, found that the provisions of s 107(1), LPA, which were operative in this case, were explicitly clear that the discretion laid with the Court to restore the name of any advocate and solicitor to the Roll who had been removed from or struck off the Roll if the Court thought that it was fair a