AP RELIANCE SDN BHD 1. ) Ramjahentherau A/l Venketesan (Beramal dan pemilik tunggal bagi Tetuan V.RAM & Associates, sebuah Firma) 2. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA

BA-17D-1-01/2023 Kand. 25 03/12/2024 10:22:06 DALAM MAHKAMAH TINGGI MALAYA DI SHAH ALAM DALAM NEGERI SELANGOR DARUL EHSAN, MALAYSIA SAMAN PEMULA NO: BA-17D-1-01/2023 Dalam Perkara Mengenai Aduan kepada Lembaga Tatatertib Peguambela dan Peguamcara No. DC/17/0105; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 100 Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 100(1)(a) Akta Profesion Undang-Undang 1976; DAN Dalam Perkara Mengenai Seksyen 100E(1)(a) Akta Profession Undang-Undang 1976. ANTARA AP RELIANCE SDN BHD (No. Syarikat: 658616-X) …PERAYU DAN 1 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal 1. RAMJAHENTERAU A/L VENKETESAN (No. K/P: 721206-14-5011) (Beramal dan Pemilik Tunggal bagi Tetuan V. Ram & Associates, Sebuah Firma) 2. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA (TAN SRI DATO’ MOHAMAD ARIFF BIN MD YUSOFF PENGERUSI LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAMBELA DAN PEGUAMCARA) …RESPONDEN-RESPONDEN JUDGMENT Introduction [1] This is an appeal brought under section 103E of the Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166] (“LPA”) by the appellant against the decision of Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board (ASDB) made under section 103D of the LPA on 8 December 2022. Grounds of Appeal [2] The appellant has put forth the following grounds of appeal: (i) the first respondent breached the duty as stakeholder; (ii) the first respondent’s misconduct is proven by contemporaneous documentary evidence; and (iii) the ASDB erred in making the decision despite the above stated. 2 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Parties [3] The appellant is a Malaysian registered company with its official business address at No. 777, Jalan Lahar Ikan Mati, Kepala Batas, 13200 Pulau Pinang. [4] The appellant’s official nature of business as stated in the Suruhanjaya Syarikat Malaysia Corporate Information is “Land Investment and Development, Investment Holding & Property Investment”. [5] The first respondent is an advocate & solicitor and the sole proprietor of Messrs V. Ram & Associates. Factual Background [6] The appellant officially lodged a complaint against the first respondent with the ASDB on 16 February 2017, under section 99 of the LPA. The ASDB requested a written explanation from the respondent on 2 May 2017, who then sought an extension, which was granted. The respondent submitted their explanation on 16 June 2017. The ASDB asked the appellant for a response on 12 July 2017, and the appellant also requested an extension, which was granted. The appellant submitted their response on 10 August 2017. [7] On 25 September 2019, the ASDB appointed a Disciplinary Committee to investigate the complaint under section 103B of the LPA. The inquiry began on 3 October 2019. On 26 October 2021, a Notice of Hearing was issued to both parties for a hearing scheduled 3 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal on 10 November 2021. The Disciplinary Committee conducted the inquiry on that date and made its findings. On 8 December 2021, the ASDB reviewed the report and dismissed the complaint under section 103D of the LPA. Analysis [8] It was argued by the appellant that there was a client – solicitor relationship between the appellant and the first respondent. This was based on an agreement between the appellant and the first respondent where: (i) the first respondent would charge the sum of RM50.00 for each claim (which was increased to RM100.00 around August 2016) (hereinafter referred to as “the said Agreed Costs”); (ii) the legal costs duly approved by the insurance companies will be given to the first respondent as further agreed fees; (iii) the compensation sums duly approved by the insurance companies (hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance’s Compensation Sum”) will be made directly by insurance companies to the first respondent’s client’s account; and (iv) the first respondent will then release the Insurance Compensation Sum to the appellant for their own distribution to its respective customers (after deducting the said Agreed Costs) as the appellant had advanced the Adjuster Fees and money to adjuster companies and appellant’s customers. 4 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [9] The appellant further argued that, despite numerous requests, the first respondent has continuously failed, neglected, and refused to release and pay the appellant the Insurance Compensation Sum received from the insurance companies. Additionally, the appellant contended that neither the appellant nor their solicitors, Messrs Stephen & Co., had ever received any letter or notice regarding the hearing date of 20 November 2021 or the appointment of the new Disciplinary Committee in Johor. [10] Pertaining to the issue of the appellant's absence, the Disciplinary Committee Chairman issued a Notice of Hearing on 26 October 2021, informing both the appellant and the first respondent of the hearing date, scheduled for 10 November 2021, via A.R. registered post, as required by Rule 14 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 P.U.(A) 190/1994. [11] For ease of reference, the said rules are reproduced below: “Notice of hearing before Disciplinary Committee 14. (1) Where a hearing in respect of any matter is to be held by the Disciplinary Committee, the Disciplinary Committee shall send a notice of the hearing to the complainant and the advocate and solicitor concerned or their legal representatives, by prepaid A.R. registered post or personal service to the last known address of the complainant and the advocate and solicitor concerned or their legal representatives. (2) A notice under subrule (1) shall specify the date, time and place of the hearing and shall be in the form or manner as determine by the Disciplinary Board. 5 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal (3) Where the prepaid A.R. registered card is returned and marked “unclaimed” or “shifted”, the Disciplinary Committee shall obtain the current address of the advocate and solicitor concerned from the Bar Council and send the notice of the hearing to the address. (4) The service mentioned in subrule (3) shall be deemed to be sufficient service.” [12] In this regard, this court is of the considered view that the Disciplinary Committee did send the required Notice of Hearing to the appellant by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post in compliance with Rule 14 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017. [13] The appellant's claim that they did not receive the hearing notice from the Disciplinary Committee is contradicted by the documentation in the Record of Appeal. There is nothing to demonstrate to this court that another person had signed for the delivery of the AR Registered Card for the Notice of Hearing without the appellant's knowledge. [See: Sivamurthy Muniandy & Ors v. Lembaga Kumpulan Wang Simpanan Pekerja [2012] 9 CLJ 598]. [14] Reference is also made to Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994 which reads: “Absence of parties before Disciplinary Committee 16. Where the complainant or the advocate and solicitor concerned or both fail to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on the date fixed for the hearing of the complaint, the Disciplinary Committee may, upon being satisfied that rule 14 has 6 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal been complied with, proceed to hear the complaint in the absence of such person, without further notice to such person and make its determinations and recommendations to the Disciplinary Board.” [15] A reading of Rule 16 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1994 clearly indicates that the disciplinary committee is allowed to proceed with the hearing despite the absence of the appellant. This court is therefore satisfied this ground bears no merit. [See: Dinesh Kanavaji Kanawagi & Ors v. Ragumaren Gopal, Majlis Peguam (Intervener) [2018] 2 CLJ 1]. [16] Pertaining to the ground that the first respondent had misconducted himself, the question is for the Disciplinary Committee and ASDB to decide. The basis of which is rules and procedures. [17] In this regard, the Federal Court case of Dinesh Kanavaji Kanawagi & Ors v. Ragumaren Gopal, Majlis Peguam (Intervener) [2018] 2 CLJ 1 the Federal Court held: “[22] All these cases enunciate the point that the DC and/or like bodies, being a collegiate of peers, must be allowed to make findings of fact based on their experience in the profession under any given circumstances. The court must certainly not substitute themselves into the position of the DC in its review role. It is not for the court to say on the facts that the offending solicitor is guilty of professional misconduct or otherwise. So arguments on the merits should not be enunciated by the court and strong credence must be given to the findings of the DC which after all are subject to review by the DB which also consists of peers.” 7 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal [18] Morever, the Court of Appeal in Bank Kerjasama Rakyat Malaysia v. Zainul Rijal Abu Bakar & Anor [2020] 7 CLJ 438 held: “[49] Secondly, a finding of gross misrepresentation, even if it amounts to a misconduct under the LPA, could not be adequately substantiated by the DB because the DB had failed to show the existence of the elements which embody misconduct such as fraud, dishonesty or deceit by the first respondent. We refer to the decision of In Re An Advocate And Solicitor [1950] CLJU 106; [1950] 1 LNS 106; [1950] 1 MLJ 113 where it was held, at pp. 115 to 116 (MLJ), that: ... In all the cases I have examined where what was involved was the solicitor's relations with his client and where the Courts have held that professional misconduct has existed, there has been present some element of fraud, dishonesty or deceit. I can find no case where the simple failure to do work for which payment has been made or where neglect or even a refusal to pay money where there has been no question of fraud or misappropriation has been held to amount to professional misconduct...” Conclusion [19] For the aforementioned reasons, this court is satisfied this appeal does not bear any merit. This appeal is therefore dismissed. Costs of RM1,500.00 to be paid to the first respondent subject to allocator. Date: 2 December 2024 (SHAHNAZ BINTI SULAIMAN) Judge High Court of Malaya, Shah Alam 8 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal Counsel: For the Appellant Eng Khin Hock Tetuan Stephen & Co. Advocates & Solicitors No. 10, Lorong Teras Jaya 8 (2nd Floor), Kawasan Perniagaan Teras Jaya, 13400 Butterworth, Pulau Pinang. stephencopg@outlook.com +6 04 3322 234 For the First Respondent: David Ragumaren and Ragumaren Gopal Tetuan Ragumaren & Co. Advocates & Solicitors No. 56-1, RGA Chambers, Jalan Telawi Bangsar Baru, 59100 Kuala Lumpur. grco@rgachambers.com +6 04 2282 3215 9 BA-17D-1-01/2023 S/N P3IuAEJbrEGmMuQyu8XoSw **Note : Serial number will be used to verify the originality of this document via eFILING portal