ROZALI BIN ISMAIL AMBI BIN EMBONG

ROZALI BIN ISMAIL AMBI BIN EMBONG

The High Court upheld the DC/DB findings because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary bodies acted perversely, breached natural justice, misconceived material facts or otherwise erred in principle; therefore there was no basis to disturb the disciplinary decision and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
WA-17D-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Rozali bin Ismail; Defendant / Respondent: Amli bin Embong (Tetuan Amli & Associates)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 September 2020
Case Number
WA-17D-6-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Section 103 E Legal Profession Act 1976 Against Disciplinary Board Decision / High Court Judgment (appeal Hearing)
Outcome
Application dismissed; Disciplinary Board order affirmed
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Disciplinary Appeal, Lawyer Etiquette and Communication, Service of Court Orders, Ex Parte Orders, Stay of Execution
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession / Professional Discipline Family Law (syariah) Procedure / Administrative Law Professional Misconduct Disciplinary Appeal Lawyer Etiquette and Communication Service of Court Orders Ex Parte Orders +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rozali bin Ismail

Plaintiff / Appellant

Amli bin Embong (Tetuan Amli & Associates)

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under Section 103 E Legal Profession Act 1976 Against Disciplinary Board Decision / High Court Judgment (appeal Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Disciplinary Board erred in dismissing the complaint
  2. 2 Whether respondent breached rules of etiquette by communicating directly with the appellant despite appellant having lawyers
  3. 3 Whether respondent improperly caused an ex‑parte order to include RM48,000 not pleaded by applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the DC/DB findings because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary bodies acted perversely, breached natural justice, misconceived material facts or otherwise erred in principle; therefore there was no basis to disturb the disciplinary decision and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; Disciplinary Board order affirmed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM3,000.00 subject to allocatur fees