rayuan sivil no. w-04-690-2010 antara david abraham samson paul

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In our view the consideration of the letter aforesaid evidences the Disciplinary Committee’s acceptance that the letter correctly records the subject matter of the teleconversation namely the evidence of Dr. V. David given at his house on 10.10.03 and in the statutory declaration dated 22.9.03. Hence no prejudice is caused to the appellant. The point to note is the unmistakeable explicit finding of the Disciplinary Committee that the letter did not give the appellant blanket authority to deduct his fees or interim fees as and when he liked. Further the Disciplinary Committee’s and High Court’s conclusion that the evidence of Dr. V. David has no bearing on its decision emanated from the Disciplinary Committee’s visit to Dr. V. David where from the evidence recorded by Disciplinary Committee it can be inferred his incoherent and unreliable behaviour. Adverting to the appellant’s reliance on Rule 7(a)(v) of the Solicitor’s Account Rules 1994 to justify his entitlement to “set-off” regretfully it cannot be countenanced as the successful invocation of the Rule requires the fulfilment of the prerequisites therein. follows:- Rule 7(a)(v) of the Solicitor’s Account Rules 1994 provides as “7. Drawing of money from client account There may be drawn from client account (a) in the case of client’s money - (v) money properly required for or towards payment of the solicitor’s costs where a bill of costs or other written intimation of the amount of the costs incurred has been delivered to the client and the client has been notified 10
that money held by him will be applied towards or in satisfaction of such costs.” From a plain reading of the section two requirements must be satisfied, namely proof of delivery of the bill and the RPGT monies held will be applied towards such costs. The evidence adduced falls short of the fulfilment of the two pre-requisites above. The Disciplinary Committee and the Court found that the appellant had off setted his legal fees from the RPGT sum without delivering his bill of costs and notifying MTUC of his intention to do so. The appellant’s Counsel in the course of his submission sought to capitalise on the Learned High Court Judge’s decision overruling the findings of the Disciplinary Committee on the excessiveness of the three bills and its consequential unfairness and prejudicial effect to the appellant as misconduct under Section 94(m) of the Legal Profession Act. Though the learned High Court Judge ruled as erroneous the Committee’s findings of the excessiveness of the three bills and its prejudicial effect nevertheless in our view the ruling aforesaid of the High Court Judge does not negate the whole Order as it is only limited to one category of misconduct namely that of sub paragraph (m) of Section 94(3) LPA. The other acts of misconduct found by the Committee under Section 94(3)(c)(k)(n) and (o) LPA remained intact and was affirmed by the Learned Judge as appears in her grounds of judgment at page 32 - 33 of the Appeal Record where she stated:- “The cumulative effect of the appellant’s wrongful conduct in retaining and deducting his client’s money, a case of misconduct under Section 94(3)(c)(k)(n) and (o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 has been made out. There is no misdirection committed by the DC as alleged 11
Page 1 and 2: DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BID
Page 3 and 4: GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT The appellant,
Page 5 and 6: Being stonewalled and not eliciting
Page 7 and 8: (f) There was no evidence produced
Page 9: The appellant’s submission of the
Page 13 and 14: amounts to grave impropriety and in
Page 15 and 16: The principles on disciplinary sent
Page 17: Counsel For The Appellant Tetuan Sr

rayuan sivil no. w-04-690-2010 antara david abraham samson paul

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?