1. ) RAVICHANTHIRAN A/L GANESAN 2. ) 1. LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 2. GAVIN LOW PENG KUAN 3. GOH PEI FEN (Kesemua beramal sebagai Rakan Kongsi di Tetuan Lau Kok Guan, Liana & Kuan) 4. YAP CHUI MOI 1. ) 1. LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 2. GAV

1. ) RAVICHANTHIRAN A/L GANESAN 2. ) 1. LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 2. GAVIN LOW PENG KUAN 3. GOH PEI FEN (Kesemua beramal sebagai Rakan Kongsi di Tetuan Lau Kok Guan, Liana & Kuan) 4. YAP CHUI MOI 1. ) 1. LAU KOK GUAN @ LOW KOK GUAN 2. GAV

Based on the pleaded facts the defendants acted as mere introducers and the Scheme of Working Arrangement amounted to prohibited touting/introducer's fees under Bar Council Rulings (which have statutory force via s57 Legal Profession Act 1976); moreover the counterclaim was defectively pleaded against the individual consultant rather than the firm/partners contrary to Order 77 r.1; therefore the preliminary application under Order 33 r.2 was allowed and the counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-93-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (original) / Defendant (counterclaim): Ravichanthiran A/L Ganesan; Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Lau Kok Guan @ Low Kok Guan; Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Gavin Low Peng Kuan; Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Goh Pei Fen; Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim): Yap Chui Moi
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
6 April 2021
Case Number
JA-22NCVC-93-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Accounts and Validation of Fee Entitlements; Counterclaim for Fee Sharing / Interlocutory Application Under Order 33 R.2 for Preliminary Determination of Points of Law During Trial; Decision on Preliminary Application Dismissing Counterclaim
Outcome
This Application allowed; Counterclaim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Touting/introducer Fees, Fee Sharing Arrangements, Pleadings and Issue Framing, Party Misjoinder/partnership Litigation, Order 33 R.2 Procedure
Source Language
Malay/English
Legal Profession Civil Procedure Contract Law Professional Ethics Touting/introducer Fees Fee Sharing Arrangements Pleadings and Issue Framing Party Misjoinder/partnership Litigation +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ravichanthiran A/L Ganesan

Plaintiff (original) / Defendant (counterclaim)

Lau Kok Guan @ Low Kok Guan

Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Gavin Low Peng Kuan

Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Goh Pei Fen

Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Yap Chui Moi

Defendant (original) / Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Accounts and Validation of Fee Entitlements; Counterclaim for Fee Sharing / Interlocutory Application Under Order 33 R.2 for Preliminary Determination of Points of Law During Trial; Decision on Preliminary Application Dismissing Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were entitled to 40% of fees under the alleged Scheme of Working Arrangement where they did not render legal services
  2. 2 Whether the Scheme constituted prohibited payment for introducing clients (touting) under Bar Council Rulings 14.23 and 17.08
  3. 3 Whether fees could be claimed where files were handled pro bono

Ratio Decidendi

Based on the pleaded facts the defendants acted as mere introducers and the Scheme of Working Arrangement amounted to prohibited touting/introducer's fees under Bar Council Rulings (which have statutory force via s57 Legal Profession Act 1976); moreover the counterclaim was defectively pleaded against the individual consultant rather than the firm/partners contrary to Order 77 r.1; therefore the preliminary application under Order 33 r.2 was allowed and the counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

This Application allowed; Counterclaim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application under Order 33 r.2 allowed
  • Counterclaim dismissed with costs