The council of the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) has filed an application to strike out legal action against it by a KPMG auditor accused of alleged “unprofessional conduct” linked to 1MDB.
The council, through law firm Messrs Mohanadass Partnership, filed the striking-out bid at the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on Sept 18.
On Aug 25, online business news portal The Edge Markets reported that KPMG auditor Ahmad Nasri Abdul Wahab obtained leave from the Kuala Lumpur High Court to commence a judicial review application against the council of MIA and two other respondents.
The other two respondents are MIA’s disciplinary appeal board and MIA.
The Edge Markets reported that Ahmad Nasri succeeded in obtaining a temporary stay of the board's decision and publishing of the said decision, pending disposal of his judicial review application. It was reported all three respondents had no objection to the temporary stay.
The online business news portal reported that the main judicial review bid targets the board’s decision on June 12 this year, which affirmed a finding by the MIA’s disciplinary committee, that Ahmad Nasri was involved in alleged “unprofessional conduct” for allegedly refusing to furnish accounts and information linked to 1MDB.
It also reported that Ahmad Nasri’s judicial review seeks to quash the finding of the MIA’s disciplinary committee dated May 17 last year.
According to the striking-out application sighted by Malaysiakini this afternoon, the council of MIA made the application under Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012.
Order 18 Rule 19 (1)(a) empowers the High Court at any stage of proceedings to issue an order to strike out a writ in the legal action on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, among others.
In the alternative, the council of MIA seeks an order, under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, for it to be removed as a respondent from the main legal action.
Order 15 Rule 6 (2)(a) deals with the power of the court at any stage of proceedings to issue an order for any person, who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party in the legal action, among others.
The council of MIA also claimed that the reliefs sought by Ahmad Nasri do not involve the council at all, among others.
The council of MIA claimed that the institute (MIA), via its disciplinary committee (DC) and its Disciplinary Appeal Board (DAB), is the decision-making body in DC and DAB’s hearing.
“The Third Respondent (council of MIA) had no involvement in the Applicant’s (Ahmad Nasri) Disciplinary Proceedings at any stage,” the council of MIA alleged through the striking-out application.
It also alleged that the High Court’s temporary stay on the board’s decision and publication only binds on the first and second respondents, namely the MIA’s disciplinary appeal board and the institute, without the need to have the third respondent (council of MIA) as a party in the main judicial review.
According to the online cause list, the council of MIA’s striking-out application is set for case management before the Kuala Lumpur High Court Registry on Oct 28.
Malaysiakini is in the midst of reaching out to the council of MIA’s legal representative over the matter. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.