Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

SAKTHIVEL NAGALINGAM OF MESSRS AMRAN JOSEPH CHAN & CO. KUMARAPPAN @ THANNIRMALAI A/L K. M. PALANIAPPAN PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-17D-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-17D-1-07/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The undertaking was conditional on actual receipt of the balance purchase price and never matured because the firm was discharged and the banker’s cheque was returned without being banked or cleared; the applicant acted as a legal assistant within firm authority and, absent evidence of excess of authority or fraud, personal liability does not attach; material procedural failures (deceased complainant without proper substitution, denial of cross-examination, absence of affidavit of death/Rule 27 compliance, defective service, failure to state standard of proof, and DB’s failure to give reasons…
6 Jun 2025

Dharmendra Kumar A/l Raghavan SEVANASPARAN A/L MANIKAM PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

Citation

PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-17D-2-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Appeal allowed because DC failed to produce prima facie proof of valid service under s.138(2) LPA and failed to comply with mandatory time limits, causing a denial of the appellant’s right to be heard; therefore the DB decision of 21.3.2025 (two-year suspension and RM50,000 fine) was unlawful and is set aside with direction for reinvestigation and rehearing by a new DC panel.
9 Jan 2020

LEE HENG YAU (Penjaga Ad-Litem untuk kanak-Kanak, Tan Ping Quan & Tan Ping Ren) 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA (Datuk Dr. Abdul Rahman Bin Haji Saad, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara) 2. SUMATHI A/P N.

Citation

BA-17D-3-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-17D-3-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court allowed Respondent 1's application and dismissed the originating proceedings on grounds that (1) the appellant failed to establish mala fides against the disciplinary board so s111 APU bars the action, (2) the disciplinary complaints lacked merit and were not proved beyond reasonable doubt as required for findings of professional misconduct, (3) the disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences which are for police/prosecutors, and (4) procedural and time‑limit failures (failure to use usul pemula and not seeking extension of the one‑month limit) su…
25 Nov 2019

MUHAMAD SAIFULDIN BIN AB RAHMAN (K/P No: 820912-06-5549) [seorang Peguambela dan Peguamcara dalam Tetuan Ahmad Rusydi Md Nor & Partners] RAVINDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 651124-01-5431) PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Citation

WA-17D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-17D-7-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the documentary record the appellant was not shown to be the respondent's solicitor nor the trustee of the RM795,530.00; the payments were established as consultancy/management fees payable to Alaf Maju Resources; the disciplinary charge under Section 94(d) was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the disciplinary board's decision was set aside and the appeal allowed with no order as to costs.

Malaysia Case Law

SAKTHIVEL NAGALINGAM OF MESSRS AMRAN JOSEPH CHAN & CO. KUMARAPPAN @ THANNIRMALAI A/L K. M. PALANIAPPAN PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA

Dharmendra Kumar A/l Raghavan SEVANASPARAN A/L MANIKAM PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM

LEE HENG YAU (Penjaga Ad-Litem untuk kanak-Kanak, Tan Ping Quan & Tan Ping Ren) 1. LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA (Datuk Dr. Abdul Rahman Bin Haji Saad, Pengerusi Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam Bela & Peguam Cara) 2. SUMATHI A/P N.

MUHAMAD SAIFULDIN BIN AB RAHMAN (K/P No: 820912-06-5549) [seorang Peguambela dan Peguamcara dalam Tetuan Ahmad Rusydi Md Nor & Partners] RAVINDRAN A/L BALAKRISHNAN (No. K/P: 651124-01-5431) PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA