KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 10 – Senior lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam and 12 majority contributories of Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (KJH) failed in their attempt to secure the service of Queen’s Counsel (QC) Sir Edward Garnier to represent them at the contempt proceedings at the Federal Court over their allegation that a Federal Court judge had plagiarised in a written judgment involving a civil suit.
High Court judge Datuk Zaleha Ismail today dismissed the QC’s application to appear on an ad-hoc basis at the apex court.
She ruled that the applicant had failed to show that he had special qualification and experience not available among advocates and solicitors in Malaysia.
Justice Zaleha made the decision after hearing submissions by Lingam’s counsel R. Thayalan, senior federal counsel Noor Hisham Ismail representing the Attorney-General’s office, and Tan Sri Cecil Abraham who represented two liquidators of Kian Joo Holdings Sdn Bhd (KJH).
Earlier, in his submission, Thayalan said: “Due to the unique and complex legal issues raised in the Federal Court in both the review application and contempt application, the QC’s specialised knowledge and expertise is not found or claimed by any advocate and solicitor practising in Malaysia.”
However, Noor Hisham, Cecil and counsel Yeoh Sho Kheong who represented the Bar Council disagreed, contending that the QC’s application failed to fulfil all the requirements of Section 18 of the Legal Profession Act 1976.
They said Malaysia had more than sufficient number of eminent and distinguished senior counsel to deal with the issues at hand.
In 2009, the 12 majority contributories had filed an application at the High Court to prevent a certain company from acquiring a 32.9 per cent stake in KJH’s Kian Joo Can Factory Bhd (KJCF).
The High Court had ordered KJH to to be wound up in 1996 and two liquidators were appointed.
The 12 plaintiffs failed in their application but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision and subsequently the case was brought to the Federal Court which ruled in favour of the liquidators.
The group of 12 then filed a notice of motion through Lingam, seeking the Federal Court to review the decision by its previous panel.
They wanted the Federal Court to set aside the decision of the previous Federal Court panel and order a re-hearing of the appeals before a new panel.
In the notice of motion, they among others claimed that the Federal Court’s 47-page judgment was substantially a reproduction of a written submission by counsel who acted for the two liquidators without any attribution to them.
The group also claimed that the court did not conduct an independent and impartial review of the evidence and the law, where it did not engage in its own analysis or reach its own findings.
On April 3 last year, in a unanimous decision, the Federal Court allowed a leave application by Cecil to cite Lingam and others.
Meanwhile, the Federal Court set Jan 22 to hear the review application by the majority contributories and March 6 for the contempt proceedings. – Bernama
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.