TAN SRI DR. MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH 1. TOMMY THOMAS 2. TAN SRI VADAKETH CHACKO GEORGE 3. MALAYSIAN BAR 4. CHRISTOPHER LEONG SAU FOO (SUED ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF MALAYSIA INCLUDING HIMSELF)

TAN SRI DR. MUHAMMAD SHAFEE ABDULLAH 1. TOMMY THOMAS 2. TAN SRI VADAKETH CHACKO GEORGE 3. MALAYSIAN BAR 4. CHRISTOPHER LEONG SAU FOO (SUED ON BEHALF OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF MALAYSIA INCLUDING HIMSELF)

The motion submitted under s64(6) was in substance a complaint concerning the appellant’s conduct and therefore, under s99(1) LPA, the Malaysian Bar was required to refer it in the first place to the Disciplinary Board; publishing and tabling the motion at the AGM contravened s99(1), was ultra vires and caused...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
02(f)-46-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: Tan Sri Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah; 1st Respondent: Tommy Thomas; 2nd Respondent: Tan Sri Vadaketh Chacko George; 3rd Respondent: Malaysian Bar; 4th Respondent: Christopher Leong Sau Foo
Court
f
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
20 October 2021
Case Number
02(f)-46-09/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal; Remitted to High Court for Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; appellant's claim allowed in part; remitted to High Court for assessment of damages against the Malaysian Bar; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Legal Profession Act 1976, Section 99(1), Section 64(6), Breach of Statutory Duty, Ultra Vires, Natural Justice, Injunction, Declaratory Relief, Remedies
Professional Discipline Statutory Duty Administrative Law Defamation Civil Procedure Legal Profession Act 1976 Section 99(1) Section 64(6) +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sri Dr. Muhammad Shafee Abdullah

Appellant

Tommy Thomas

1st Respondent

Tan Sri Vadaketh Chacko George

2nd Respondent

Malaysian Bar

3rd Respondent

Christopher Leong Sau Foo

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal; Remitted to High Court for Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a motion under s64(6) LPA that seeks condemnation and referral constitutes a 'complaint' requiring referral to the Disciplinary Board under s99(1) LPA
  2. 2 Whether holding or allowing debate at AGM would offend natural justice or taint subsequent disciplinary proceedings
  3. 3 Whether members proposing the motion and the Bar Council acted ultra vires by publishing and tabling the motion instead of referring to the Disciplinary Board

Ratio Decidendi

The motion submitted under s64(6) was in substance a complaint concerning the appellant’s conduct and therefore, under s99(1) LPA, the Malaysian Bar was required to refer it in the first place to the Disciplinary Board; publishing and tabling the motion at the AGM contravened s99(1), was ultra vires and caused actionable prejudice entitling the appellant to declaratory relief and assessment of damages against the Malaysian Bar.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal decision set aside; appellant's claim allowed in part; remitted to High Court for assessment of damages against the Malaysian Bar; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and Court of Appeal decision set aside
  • Declaration that the motion seeking the Malaysian Bar to condemn and reprimand the appellant was ultra vires the Legal Profession Act 1976 and usurped the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Board (as per prayer (a) of paragraph 8)