DATO' TEA CHOO KENG NO. KP: 680212-01-5733 1. ) JOTHI MUNIANDY NO. KP: 820330-01-5664 2. ) INDRA DEVI LECHANAM NO. KP: 850620-01-6240 3. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

DATO' TEA CHOO KENG NO. KP: 680212-01-5733 1. ) JOTHI MUNIANDY NO. KP: 820330-01-5664 2. ) INDRA DEVI LECHANAM NO. KP: 850620-01-6240 3. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

The High Court held the Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board were competent to hear the complaint (including issues arising from alleged false evidence), the committee's findings were not manifestly perverse and related to failure to protect client interests rather than a pure criminal finding of perjury, there was no breach of natural justice, and therefore the disciplinary decision (fine and suspension order) was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
WA-17D-11-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Dato' Tea Choo Keng; Respondent: Jothi Muniandy; Respondent: Indra Devi Lechanam; Intervener: Majlis Peguam Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 October 2019
Case Number
WA-17D-11-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 103 E Legal Profession Act 1976 / High Court Judgment (special Powers Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct, Perjury, Natural Justice, Standard of Proof, Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Bodies, Sanctions
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession / Professional Discipline Administrative Law Civil Procedure Misconduct Perjury Natural Justice Standard of Proof Jurisdiction of Disciplinary Bodies +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dato' Tea Choo Keng

Appellant

Jothi Muniandy

Respondent

Indra Devi Lechanam

Respondent

Majlis Peguam Malaysia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 103 E Legal Profession Act 1976 / High Court Judgment (special Powers Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Committee/Disciplinary Board had jurisdiction to hear allegations of perjury and related complaints
  2. 2 Whether the scope of 'misconduct' under s94(3) LPA excludes perjury or similar allegations
  3. 3 Whether the Disciplinary Committee/Board erred by relying on speculative statements and without hearing other witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Disciplinary Committee and Disciplinary Board were competent to hear the complaint (including issues arising from alleged false evidence), the committee's findings were not manifestly perverse and related to failure to protect client interests rather than a pure criminal finding of perjury, there was no breach of natural justice, and therefore the disciplinary decision (fine and suspension order) was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the Disciplinary Board/Disciplinary Committee dated 12.4.2019 confirmed