LIM KIEN HUAT 1. ) HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD (Dalam Liquidasi) 2. ) TAN KEN MENG 3. ) KHOO CHUN FUN 4. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

LIM KIEN HUAT 1. ) HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD (Dalam Liquidasi) 2. ) TAN KEN MENG 3. ) KHOO CHUN FUN 4. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

The appeal is allowed because the DC denied the Appellant a fair hearing by refusing to admit a material witness, the DC/DB erred by imputing vicarious firm liability as personal guilt without establishing personal culpability, and the findings were not shown to meet the required beyond reasonable doubt standard; the High Court order is set aside.

Citation
B-02(A)-1132-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Lim Kien Huat; First Respondent: Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn. Bhd. (In Liquidation); Second Respondent: Tan Ken Meng; Third Respondent: Khoo Chun Fun; Fourth Respondent: Majlis Peguam
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 September 2025
Case Number
B-02(A)-1132-07/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Natural Justice and Fair Hearing, Standard of Proof (beyond Reasonable Doubt), Vicarious Liability Vs Personal Culpability, Disciplinary Sanctions, Partnership Act S12, Legal Profession Act S94, Advocate's Duty to Client (rule 16)
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Partnership Law Company Law (winding Up) Professional Misconduct Natural Justice and Fair Hearing Standard of Proof (beyond Reasonable Doubt) +5 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lim Kien Huat

Appellant

Ho Shen Lee (M) Sdn. Bhd. (In Liquidation)

First Respondent

Tan Ken Meng

Second Respondent

Khoo Chun Fun

Third Respondent

Majlis Peguam

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant could be held personally guilty of professional misconduct for acts of a subordinate or firm colleagues
  2. 2 Whether the Disciplinary Committee breached natural justice by refusing to allow the Appellant to call a material witness (his client)
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary findings met the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard required in professional misconduct proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the DC denied the Appellant a fair hearing by refusing to admit a material witness, the DC/DB erred by imputing vicarious firm liability as personal guilt without establishing personal culpability, and the findings were not shown to meet the required beyond reasonable doubt standard; the High Court order is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • High Court order set aside