Judgment

Nik Hashim FCJ:

[1] With regard to the preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent at the outset of the hearing, I agree that the objection be dismissed with no order as to costs. I agree, without qualification, with the reasons which are so clearly expressed in the judgment of my learned brother Augustine Paul, FCJ.

[2] As to whether the disciplinary board (the DB) was a party aggrieved, it appears to me that s. 103E(3) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 confers a right of appeal to any party aggrieved by the decision of the High Court. And since the DB was made a party by the 1st respondent before the High Court and the interests of the DB had been prejudicially affected by the order of costs against the DB by the decision of the High Court, the DB was a party aggrieved and was therefore entitled to appeal to the Federal Court against the High Court's decision (see Cook v. Southend Borough Council [1990] 1 All ER 243 CA). In the circumstances, this court orders that this appeal be heard on its merit.

Augustine Paul FCJ:

[3] At the commencement of the hearing of this appeal the first respondent raised a preliminary objection questioning the competency of the appellan