LEE HENG YAU (PENJAGA AD-LITEM PERINTAH 25.11.2011 UNTUK TAN PING QUAN & TAN PING REN DUA ORANG KANAK-KANAK) 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA (DATUK DR. ABDUL RAMAN BIN JAHI SAAD CHAIRMAN ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY

LEE HENG YAU (PENJAGA AD-LITEM PERINTAH 25.11.2011 UNTUK TAN PING QUAN & TAN PING REN DUA ORANG KANAK-KANAK) 1. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA (DATUK DR. ABDUL RAMAN BIN JAHI SAAD CHAIRMAN ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY

Appeal dismissed because (1) the Disciplinary Board could not be named as a party under s103E(7), (2) the appeal was filed outside the one-month statutory period in s103E(1) with no extension sought, (3) appellant lacked locus standi as the represented children had attained majority and appellant proceeded unrepresented contrary to court rules, and (4) the substantive allegations lacked evidence and merit; High Court decision was not plainly wrong and must be upheld.

Citation
B-02(A)-223-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Perayu (penjaga Ad Litem Untuk Tang Ping Quan & Tan Ping Ren): Lee Heng Yau; Responden Pertama: Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara (Datuk Dr. Abdul Raman bin Haji Saad); Responden Kedua: Sumathi A/P N Govindasamy; Responden Ketiga: Lua Ai Siew; Responden Keempat: Ng Zhi Ying; Responden Kelima: Ng Cheng Keat; Responden Keenam: Pacific Willplan and Trustplan (Pacific Trustee Berhad)
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2022
Case Number
B-02(A)-223-02/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Dismissal of Originating Summons Under S103 E Akta Profesion Undang Undang 1976 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Section 103 E APU (appeal Procedure), Section 100(1)(a) APU (dismissal for No Merit), Section 111 APU (immunity), Locus Standi as Guardian Ad Litem, Time Limitation for Appeals, Requirement for Legal Representation (rules of Court), Age of Majority Act (majority at 18), Vexatious Litigation
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Discipline Administrative Law Civil Procedure Guardianship and Capacity Law Section 103 E APU (appeal Procedure) Section 100(1)(a) APU (dismissal for No Merit) Section 111 APU (immunity) Locus Standi as Guardian Ad Litem +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Heng Yau

Perayu (penjaga Ad Litem Untuk Tang Ping Quan & Tan Ping Ren)

Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara (Datuk Dr. Abdul Raman bin Haji Saad)

Responden Pertama

Sumathi A/P N Govindasamy

Responden Kedua

Lua Ai Siew

Responden Ketiga

Ng Zhi Ying

Responden Keempat

Ng Cheng Keat

Responden Kelima

Pacific Willplan and Trustplan (Pacific Trustee Berhad)

Responden Keenam

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Dismissal of Originating Summons Under S103 E Akta Profesion Undang Undang 1976 / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board may be named as a respondent under s103E(7) APU
  2. 2 Whether the appeal was filed within the one-month period under s103E(1) APU
  3. 3 Whether appellant had locus standi as guardian ad litem after the represented children attained majority

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because (1) the Disciplinary Board could not be named as a party under s103E(7), (2) the appeal was filed outside the one-month statutory period in s103E(1) with no extension sought, (3) appellant lacked locus standi as the represented children had attained majority and appellant proceeded unrepresented contrary to court rules, and (4) the substantive allegations lacked evidence and merit; High Court decision was not plainly wrong and must be upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs fixed at RM3,000 to each respondent to be paid by the appellant