ABD SAMAT BIN OTHMAN 1. ) LIM MOOK SAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA

ABD SAMAT BIN OTHMAN 1. ) LIM MOOK SAN 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA

Appeal dismissed because the appellant fundamentally failed to comply with mandatory Rules 4 and 5 by not filing/certifying/serving the record of appeal, a defect that is not curable; on merits, DB's dismissal under s.100 was proper because appellant had been afforded opportunity to be heard and the evidence showed the 1st respondent was not party to the fraud (fabricated documents induced the signing of cheques by the 1st respondent).

Citation
PA-17D-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: ABD SAMAT BIN OTHMAN; 1st Respondent: LIM MOOK SAN; 2nd Respondent: LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Case Number
PA-17D-2-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Legal Profession Act 1976 (originating Summons) / High Court Appeal Hearing on Originating Summons
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Disciplinary Proceedings, Appeal Procedure, Stakeholder Funds, Natural Justice
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Professional Discipline Trusts and Trustees Contract Misconduct Disciplinary Proceedings Appeal Procedure Stakeholder Funds +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABD SAMAT BIN OTHMAN

Appellant

LIM MOOK SAN

1st Respondent

LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Legal Profession Act 1976 (originating Summons) / High Court Appeal Hearing on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Non-compliance with Rules 4 and 5 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) (Appeal) Rules 1994 (failure to file and serve record of appeal)
  2. 2 Whether the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board correctly dismissed the complaint under s.100(1)(a) and s.100(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976
  3. 3 Whether the 1st respondent was liable for misappropriation of stakeholder funds where a partner fabricated documents and induced release of funds

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the appellant fundamentally failed to comply with mandatory Rules 4 and 5 by not filing/certifying/serving the record of appeal, a defect that is not curable; on merits, DB's dismissal under s.100 was proper because appellant had been afforded opportunity to be heard and the evidence showed the 1st respondent was not party to the fraud (fabricated documents induced the signing of cheques by the 1st respondent).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondents