2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

Cases

MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA v. SYED AHMAD IMDADZ SAID ABAS & ANOR
Federal Court, Putrajaya
Abdul Rahman Sebli CJSS, Zabariah Mohd Yusof, Hasnah Mohammed Hashim FCJJ
[Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-39-05-2022(A)]
9 November 2023
[2024] 1 MLRA 603

JUDGMENT

[1] The appeal before us centres on the application of s 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA), that is, whether an advocate and solicitor should be given the opportunity to be heard before the Disciplinary Board (DB) makes an order that is likely to be adverse against him if the DB intends to impose a greater or lesser penalty or punishment than that recommended by the Disciplinary Committee (DC).

[2] The questions of law for our determination are as follows:

(i) Whether the 1st respondent (Syed) needs to be given the opportunity to be heard under s 103D(4) of the LPA when the DB has already reduced his penalty or punishment; and

(ii) Whether the word "adverse" under s 103D(4) of the LPA should be read in the context of "greater or lesser" under s 103D(2) of the LPA.

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

PRESS METAL SARAWAK SDN BHD v. ETIQA TAKAFUL BERHAD
Federal Court, Putrajaya
2016] 5 MLRA 529
[Civil Appeal No: 02(i)-27-04-2015(W)]
15 August 2016 [+]
TAN POOI YEE v. KETUA PENGARAH JABATAN PENDAFTARAN NEGARA
High Court Malaya, Kuala Lumpur
[2016] 5 MLRH 501
24NCVC-1306-08-2015
18 July 2016 [+]
ILANGOVAN KRISHNAN v. SHIYA SDN BHD
Industrial Court, Johor
[2016] 2 MELR 374
16/4-157/15
27 April 2016 [+]
JanuaryFebruaryJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember