DHARMENDRA KUMAR A/L RAGHAVAN MURUGAN A/L PONNUSAMY PENCELAH Majlis Peguam

DHARMENDRA KUMAR A/L RAGHAVAN MURUGAN A/L PONNUSAMY PENCELAH Majlis Peguam

The High Court held the disciplinary process was vitiated by denial of fair hearing: the committee proceeded without the appellant despite reasonable, documented requests for adjournment and available alternative dates within the four‑month window; a disciplinary finding reached in the appellant's absence could not meet the required standard of proof and thus the Board's order, the committee's report and appointment were set aside, the fine ordered returned and costs awarded.

Citation
KA-17D-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/appellant: Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan; Respondent/complainant: Murugan a/l Ponnusamy; Pencelah/intervener: Majlis Peguam
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
26 September 2022
Case Number
KA-17D-1-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review/appeal Against Disciplinary Board Decision / High Court Judgment on Originating Application (appeal Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Disciplinary Board order and committee report set aside. Fine to be refunded. Costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice/fair Hearing, Standard of Proof, Locus Standi, Procedural Irregularity, Costs and Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Administrative Law Legal Profession Discipline Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice/fair Hearing Standard of Proof Locus Standi +2 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dharmendra Kumar a/l Raghavan

Perayu/appellant

Murugan a/l Ponnusamy

Respondent/complainant

Majlis Peguam

Pencelah/intervener

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review/appeal Against Disciplinary Board Decision / High Court Judgment on Originating Application (appeal Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complainant (respondent) had locus to file the complaint
  2. 2 Whether disciplinary proceedings breached natural justice by proceeding in the appellant's absence
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary committee improperly refused reasonable adjournments contrary to Rule 15(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the disciplinary process was vitiated by denial of fair hearing: the committee proceeded without the appellant despite reasonable, documented requests for adjournment and available alternative dates within the four‑month window; a disciplinary finding reached in the appellant's absence could not meet the required standard of proof and thus the Board's order, the committee's report and appointment were set aside, the fine ordered returned and costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Disciplinary Board order and committee report set aside. Fine to be refunded. Costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Order dated 19 November 2021 of the Disciplinary Board confirming liability and imposing a fine of RM4,000 is set aside
  • The report of the Disciplinary Committee appointed for Complaint No. DC/16/0859 (alternatively DC/15/0859 as recorded) is set aside