MUHAMAD SAIFULDIN BIN AB RAHMAN KP NO: 820912-06-5549 SEORANG PEGUAMBELA DA PEGUAMCARA DALAM TETUAN AHMAD RUSYDI MD NOR & PARTNERS RAVINDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN KP NO: 651124-01-5431 PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

MUHAMAD SAIFULDIN BIN AB RAHMAN KP NO: 820912-06-5549 SEORANG PEGUAMBELA DA PEGUAMCARA DALAM TETUAN AHMAD RUSYDI MD NOR & PARTNERS RAVINDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN KP NO: 651124-01-5431 PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

The appeal is allowed because the disciplinary finding under Section 94(d) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt: contemporaneous documentary evidence established the appellant represented Alaf Maju Resources and the payments were consultancy fees, not trust funds held for the respondent; there was therefore no proven duty to the respondent and no culpable release of stakeholder funds.

Citation
WA-17D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
PERAYU: Muhamad Saifuldin bin Ab Rahman; RESPONDEN: Ravindran a/l Balakrishnan; PENCELAH: Majlis Peguam Malaysia
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 November 2019
Case Number
WA-17D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Disciplinary Decision Under the Legal Profession Act 1976 / High Court Appeal (appellate & Special Powers Division)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Disciplinary Board dated 16 February 2019 set aside; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Standard of Proof, Client Representation, Trust Funds, Negligence
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Administrative Law Professional Discipline Disciplinary Proceedings Standard of Proof Client Representation Trust Funds Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhamad Saifuldin bin Ab Rahman

PERAYU

Ravindran a/l Balakrishnan

RESPONDEN

Majlis Peguam Malaysia

PENCELAH

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Disciplinary Decision Under the Legal Profession Act 1976 / High Court Appeal (appellate & Special Powers Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was the client (anakkuam) of the appellant
  2. 2 Whether appellant held the RM795,530.00 as stakeholder/trust money
  3. 3 Whether appellant breached Section 94(d) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by releasing the funds negligently

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the disciplinary finding under Section 94(d) could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt: contemporaneous documentary evidence established the appellant represented Alaf Maju Resources and the payments were consultancy fees, not trust funds held for the respondent; there was therefore no proven duty to the respondent and no culpable release of stakeholder funds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Disciplinary Board dated 16 February 2019 set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Decision of Lembaga Tatatertib Peguambela dan Peguamcara dated 16 February 2019 is set aside