PHAZALUDDIN BIN ABU JADADISH CHANDRA A/L BIPIN CHANDRA PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

PHAZALUDDIN BIN ABU JADADISH CHANDRA A/L BIPIN CHANDRA PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Disciplinary finding under s94(3)(m) LPA was unsustainable because complainant failed to prove ownership of the bail funds, the Disciplinary Committee did not establish that the fees were grossly excessive or explain basis for such a finding, and the complaint had not properly pleaded or relied on excessiveness; accordingly no professional misconduct proven and High Court order setting aside Disciplinary Board was correctly affirmed.

Citation
W-02(A)-1575-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Phazaluddin Bin Abu; Respondent: Jadadish Chandra A/L Bipin Chandra; Intervener: Majlis Peguam Malaysia
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
W-02(A)-1575-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (disciplinary) / Court of Appeal Hearing From High Court Appeal Under S103 E of the Legal Profession Act 1976
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order setting aside Disciplinary Board affirmed; finding of misconduct under s94(3)(m) not proven
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct Under S94(3)(m) LPA, Fees Agreement and Reasonableness, Stakeholder/client Account Handling, Standard of Appellate Review of Disciplinary Findings
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Disciplinary Proceedings Legal Ethics Criminal Law (background) Professional Misconduct Under S94(3)(m) LPA Fees Agreement and Reasonableness Stakeholder/client Account Handling Standard of Appellate Review of Disciplinary Findings

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phazaluddin Bin Abu

Appellant

Jadadish Chandra A/L Bipin Chandra

Respondent

Majlis Peguam Malaysia

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (disciplinary) / Court of Appeal Hearing From High Court Appeal Under S103 E of the Legal Profession Act 1976

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent was guilty of professional misconduct under s94(3)(m) LPA by charging grossly excessive fees in the absence of a written agreement
  2. 2 Whether respondent improperly dealt with stakeholder bail money without mandate of the client
  3. 3 Whether the Disciplinary Committee/Board erred in law in making findings outside the scope of the complaint

Ratio Decidendi

Disciplinary finding under s94(3)(m) LPA was unsustainable because complainant failed to prove ownership of the bail funds, the Disciplinary Committee did not establish that the fees were grossly excessive or explain basis for such a finding, and the complaint had not properly pleaded or relied on excessiveness; accordingly no professional misconduct proven and High Court order setting aside Disciplinary Board was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order setting aside Disciplinary Board affirmed; finding of misconduct under s94(3)(m) not proven

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court dated 19.7.2018 affirmed