Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to counsel of choice

Legal area

Court

19 Aug 2022

Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak 1. ) Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-21NVC-193-10/2021 - Enclosure (38) (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

38
Case number

WA-21NVC-193-10/2021 - Enclosure (38) (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found no sufficient evidence of any nexus, personal or pecuniary interest or likelihood the two named partners would be witnesses; the Defendant was not a partner and had no profit interest; the Attorney General had granted fiat to the two partners; the Plaintiff’s delayed objection amounted to an inconsistent position/estoppel; accordingly the disqualification application failed and was dismissed with costs, and the change of solicitors notice was allowed.
9 Feb 2021

1. KARAMJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 2. BALJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 3. AMARJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 1. KIRAT SINGH SANDHU A/L MANCHARANJIT SINGH 2. JASRAJ SINGH SANDHU 3. MALKIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 4. JARANJIT KAUR A/P SAPURAN SINGH 5. NIM

Citation

JB-22NCVC-42-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JB-22NCVC-42-06/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court allowed the application to disqualify Mr CC Quek because his admitted prior contact with the 3rd Defendant placed him in a position where he may be a material witness and/or possessed confidential information, creating an appearance of conflict and embarrassment under the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978; the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and balanced the right to counsel of choice against the interests of fairness and public confidence, concluding disqualification was necessary.
20 Nov 2020

NG YEE HONG MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS

Citation

W-02(IM)-2232-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)-2232-12/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Court allowed appeal and held that STSP must be recused from acting for MIA in the judicial review because their prior representation of the Investigation Committee created a real appearance of conflict of interest and potential unfairness; affidavits denying actual interference did not dispel the reasonable perception of conflict; the public interest in perceived fairness prevailed over counsel choice.
18 Feb 2020

Yong Choo Kiong

Citation

A-05-554-12-2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

A-05-554-12-2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered transfer to the High Court because the Public Prosecutor's clear concession, supported by prosecutorial sources of information and statutory scheme linking s.418A to s.417, combined with the novelty of using the Witness Protection Act 2009 in a rape trial and the public importance of the case, made transfer expedient in the interests of justice and avoided delay and piecemeal appeals.

Malaysia Case Law

Mohammad Najib bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak 1. ) Thomas Thomas @ Mohan a/l K. Thomas 2. ) Kerajaan Malaysia

1. KARAMJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 2. BALJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 3. AMARJIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 1. KIRAT SINGH SANDHU A/L MANCHARANJIT SINGH 2. JASRAJ SINGH SANDHU 3. MALKIT SINGH A/L SARUP SINGH 4. JARANJIT KAUR A/P SAPURAN SINGH 5. NIM

NG YEE HONG MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ACCOUNTANTS

Yong Choo Kiong