Shamsiah binti Ibrahim v Attorney-General & ors [1981]

The Bar and Johor Bar Committee objected again the admissions of the Petitioners on the
ground during the Pupilage was employee of the of the State Development Corporation and
received remuneration for paid leave while her pupilage.
Held :
Merely the receipt of remuneration during this period by the pupils was not prohibited by the
section and in fact the section does not preclude remuneration received from his master.
Special leave is not necessary.
Notice of objection was not properly filed by the defendant

Samatha Murthi v Attorney General Malaysia & Ors. [1982] 2 MLJ 126 (Federal
Court)
The appellant was an Army Officer and a Barrister having called by LincolnInn and the
Malaysian Bar. He returns to Malaysia and reading in Mr. Vijandrans Chambers in Kuala
Lumpur for seven months. When serving in Sarawak he read in chambers of Mr. K.C.I.
Reddy in Kuching . In August 1981 he petitioned the High Court in Kuala Lumpur for
admission to Malaysian Bar. The three respondents, the Bar Council, the Bar Committee,
Selangor and Federal Territory and the Attorney General opposed the petition. On February 6
1982, the high court upheld the objections on the three respondents and dismissed the
petition.
Issue : whether Mr. Reedy who practiced in Sarawak was an advocate and solicitors who had
been active practice in Malaysia within the meaning of Section 13(1) of the LPA
Held :
Mr. Reddy is and advocate and solicitors within the Act although he has no practising
certificates under the Act, as long as he has been admitted and enrolled under the Act or
any previous written law, he is an advocates and solicitor within the meaning of the Act.
The Court not agrees when the respondent argued the Act has no application to Sabah and
Sarawak. The Court view that, the word Malaysia must be construed to include any part of
Malaysia, the very words used in the new paragraph (cc) of section 4(1) of the Advocates

Ordinances of Sabah and Sarawak. Moreover , the Legal Profession Act itself envisages one
single bar for the whole Malaysia, Section 2 and 41.
The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the petition for further consideration by the High
Court.
Because there is the appellant so read without leave obtained under s 12(3) of the LPA. The
petition has been rejected (section 12(3) of the LPA). However the Army had given their
blessing to the appellant reading in Mr. Reddys Chamber and had specially given him leave
to enable him to do so.
Re Mutang Tagal [1984] 2 MLJ 239
Mutang Tagal petitions for admission to the Bar in West Malaysia under the Legal Profession
Act 1976. He attended the Chambers of Mr Peter Chin Kah Fui at Miri, Sarawak for a period
of twelve months from 23 February 1981 to 23 February 1982. Mr Peter Chin was an
advocate called to the Sarawak Bar under the Sarawak Bar Ordinance before the Act came
into operation. The Bar Council of West Malaysia objects this petition and contends that the
Petitioner has not complied with S 13 of the Act.
Held:
The term of advocates and solicitor in s 13(1) of the Act include an advocate called to the
Sarawak Bar under the Advocates Ordinance of Sarawak because such interpretation would
facilitate the intention of the legislature to treat Sabah, Sarawak and West Malaysia as one
country for the purpose of pupillage. (Samantha Murthi v AG [1982] 2 MLJ 126 was
followed)
The petition is granted.
Ong Siew Im Pamela v Majlis Peguam & Ors [1995] 4 MLJ 233
The petitioner had posted the notice on the notice boards of 14 out of 15 High Courts in
Malaya that the petitioners had filed her petition for admission to the Malayan Bar as
required under S 15(5) of the LPA. The failure to post on the notice board is out o his control.
The applicant had in fact complained to the Registrar of the High Court twice of behalf of the
petitioner, her chambering pupil.
The applicant made this application on behalf of the petitioner for abridgment of the time of
posting the notice. The issue was whether the court had inherent jurisdiction to abridge time

Held :
The term in s 15(5) of the Act is clear and unambiguous and the court had no jurisdiction to
abridge the time. Moreover, S 25(2) of the Court Judicature Act 1964 could not be used to
invoke the courts inherent jurisdiction in this case as the court only extend time if the Act
itself vested such jurisdiction of the court.
Akberdin Abdul Kader & Anor v Majlis Peguam Malaysia [2002] 4 CLJ 689 (CA)
The appellant is an advocates and solicitor of Malaya. He was called to the Bar on 1 March
1991. Later he joined the Judicial and Legal Services as Magistrate (6 years). Thereafter he
resigned and returned to private practice. Cik Faradinah bt Abu Bakar read in chambers of the
appellant. Eventually her petition to be admitted to the Bar was heard and admitted as
advocates and solicitors. After the admission, Bar Council realised that the appellant was not
qualified to take on a pupil.
Held :
The interpretation of Section 13(1) of the LPA should be purposive. The court cannot in the
present case accede to the invitation to apply a literal interpretation to s. 13(1) because that
would defeat the intention of Parliament. Therefore the court observe that the modern
approach to statutory interpretation is purposive not literal. The trial judge adopted the correct
approach. The court also rejected the argument the appellant is a qualified to act as pupil
master because his active practice should include the period of six years as a Magistrate.
Therefore this appeal fails.

Majlis Peguam v Sunil Sing Gill [2004] 4 MLJ 1

The Respondent graduated from National University of Singapore (NUS) and called to the
Singapore Bar. He practices in Singapore approximately 19 months. Then he wanted to be
admitted to Malaysian Bar and read in chambers with Mr George Pathmanathan. Mr
Pathmanathan practiced in Labuan. The issue is whether the respondent satisfied s 13(1) of
the Legal Profession Act.

Held:
The appellant application was dismissed because the respondent had satisfied the requirement
of S. 13(3) of the LPA. Mr. George Pathamanathan was at material time an advocates and
solicitor. Equally, he had an active practice in Malaysia (Labuan)