Ethics 2016 Q4 20M: - Chairman of management body of Holiday Resort-Acted

for himself in a BOC case-Has pecuniary interest, material witness

State Objections :-
- RULE 7 no a&s to accept renumeration in capacity as mp, etc except
emolumemts as mp
(b) no as to accept position of executive director/secretary w/out express
consent of bc
Chan is chairman – executive director must apply for BC for consent
- RULE 27 a&s not to appear where pecuniarily interested
Vijayalakshmi Devi A/P Nadchathiram v Saraswathy Devi A/P Nadchathiram
Whether the COA interpretation on ‘”directly pecuniary interest” within RULE
27(a) was correct in law
Counsel cited Haji Abdul Ghani Ishak & Anor v PP
where it is defined as any interest relating to money or money’s worth, any
interest that could be converted into money, or any interest the object of
which is to make money falls in the category of pecuniary interest.
RS Muthiah v Pembinaan Fiba Sdn Bhd
Any interest which the object is to make money
Maris Housing Sdn Bhd and Anor v Lee Seng Wai
P must show that D has pecuniary interest
On the facts, chan definitely has an interest – money’s worth (RM 5 MIL) in the
outcome of proceedings because he is in fact the Plaintiff, it his own claim.
Thus by virtue of RULE 27(a) he should be disqualified from acting for himself.
Material witness
RULE 28 AS not to appear for his client if he is a witness testifying on the
issues material and disputed question of fact
In this case Chan an AS should not defend his own case where he will be a
material witness in his case.
Abdul Halim v Pengarah Penjara Taiping
AS made an affidavit and testified for his client
Million Group Credit Sdn Bhd v Lee Shoo Khoon
AS should not appear as witness
Syarikat Pengangkutan Sakti Sdn Bhd v Tan Joo Khing t/a Bengkel Sen Tak
The right of particular individual to be represented by an AS of his own is not
absolute as it is the court that will determine that right
Mr Gana Muthusamy should not be on the record for the Plaintiff as might be
called as witness by the defendant His law firm would also be barred. “When
that lawyer is called to testify, that lawyer should entrust the conduct of the
case to another lawyer”
Decision:
Chan decision to appear as co-counsel should be allowed to be objected
considering the breaches of the Rules above, Chan should not be allowed to
continue to represent himself. If he refuses, complaint can be lodged to the
disciplinary board and he may be then after enquiry by the disciplinary
committee be reprimanded/censure or fined or suspended for period not
exceeding 5 years s103C
S77 LPA 1976 the BC has powers to make rules regarding practice
S99 LPA complaint can be lodged against the AS in writing to the Disciplinary
Board and the disciplinary will take action if there is sufficient cause