Suit against Bar to be decided on Nov 16
K KabilanPublished: Nov 7, 2000 8:01 PM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 10:21 AM
The Kuala Lumpur High Court today tentatively fixed Nov 16 for a decision in a civil suit filed by a lawyer against the Malaysian Bar and its ex-officio.
Justice RK Nathan said he will try to prepare his written judgment by that date and will inform the parties if the date is to be changed.
He added that he would have to go through voluminous bundles of authorities submitted by both parties.
The suit was filed by K Rajasegaran against the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and its then chairman RR Chelvarajah for acting ultra vires of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) last November to discuss allegations pertaining the judiciary.
The matter has been heard by way of trial of preliminary issues.
Rajasegaran has claimed that by calling for the EGM and to discuss the proposed resolution calling for a Royal Commission to investigate the judiciary, the defendants' acts were contemptuous, seditious and an abuse of their powers.
The Bar Council has proposed to call for the EGM to discuss allegations pertaining to the judiciary as contained in an affidavit filed by Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura in a defamation suit file against him by two companies.
Editors in chambers
Earlier, senior editors of three print media met Nathan is his chambers following Nathan's order yesterday for them to appear to explain an "inaccurate" report which was published.
The senior editors of national news agency Bernama, Azman Ujang, The Sun, Robert Ho, and New Straits Times, Syed Nazri Syed Harun (both dailies used Bernama news report about the suit) met Nathan, along with Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran and the lawyer for the defendants, Malik Imtiaz.
No details of the meeting were revealed to the press but it is learnt that the editors have been asked to carry a retraction to their story.
The Bernama report dated Nov 1 stated that Malik had submitted that "the Bar Council's holding of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), to discuss Chief Justice Eusoff Chin's conduct following reports in the media that Eusoff went to New Zealand for a vacation paid for by lawyer Datuk VK Lingam, was a noble act ..."
Nathan noted this was not said at all in the proceedings and asked the editors to appear before him to explain how this matter was published [#1] (Editors ordered to appear before court[/#], Nov 2).
Unfair treatment
In the proceedings today, Vijandran submitted that one of the allegations contained in the affidavit pertained to a lawyer drafting a judgment on behalf of a judge.
"No attempt was made by the defendants to even hear from the judge as to the truth (of this allegation). Even criminals in this country are asked to give a statement," said Vijandran.
"They should have met the judge concerned. They should have extended a basic courtesy and an adherence to the rule of law. They must hear from the other side."
He added that the Bar Council could have also spoken to the lawyer alleged to have drafted the judgment.
Bar disciplinary board
"If they were really interested in the truth, they could have not only spoken to the lawyer, but could have referred him to the Bar disciplinary board," he said.
The board is a very powerful one and could even set up an investigating tribunal, said Vijandran.
"They did not do that. They have the power to do that, but they decided not to do so. They say they will defer action against the lawyer until after the setting up of the Royal Commission and its findings," he added.
He also said that the manner in which the Bar Council decided to call for an EGM by solely relying on an affidavit was worrying.
"It is a contemptuous disregard of the law as pleadings are not evidence and a group of experienced and wise lawyers decided to rely on the pleadings alone."
He noted that the action was initiated by his client not with the intention of destroying the Bar Council but to solve its identity crisis.
"We want to establish a guideline to solve a problem arising from the council which does not know the ambit of its powers," he said.
Plaintiff not affected
Malik responded by stating that for Rajasegaran to succeed in this suit, he must show his precise interest in the matter.
"Showing interest in the larger sense is not sufficient. He must show how he is effected by the calling of the EGM," he said.
He also said that if at all any criminal action was to be taken by the police against the Bar over the EGM, it will only affect those who attended the meeting as well as the people who set up the meeting.
Meanwhile, the Federal Court will hear a leave application by the defendants on Nov 15 to appeal against the Court of Appeal decisions upholding Nathan's rulings on preliminary matters.
Nathan had earlier dismissed the defendants' application to strike out this suit as well as the application to set aside an injunction granted to Rajasegaran to stop the defendants from holding the EGM on Nov 20 last year.
The defendants appealed against the decisions and the Court of Appeal had on July 12 dismissed their appeals [#2]('Unconstitutional for public to discuss judiciary's conduct openly'[/#], July 12).
Justice RK Nathan said he will try to prepare his written judgment by that date and will inform the parties if the date is to be changed.
He added that he would have to go through voluminous bundles of authorities submitted by both parties.
The suit was filed by K Rajasegaran against the Malaysian Bar, the Bar Council and its then chairman RR Chelvarajah for acting ultra vires of the Legal Profession Act 1976 by calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) last November to discuss allegations pertaining the judiciary.
The matter has been heard by way of trial of preliminary issues.
Rajasegaran has claimed that by calling for the EGM and to discuss the proposed resolution calling for a Royal Commission to investigate the judiciary, the defendants' acts were contemptuous, seditious and an abuse of their powers.
The Bar Council has proposed to call for the EGM to discuss allegations pertaining to the judiciary as contained in an affidavit filed by Asian Wall Street Journal correspondent Raphael Pura in a defamation suit file against him by two companies.
Editors in chambers
Earlier, senior editors of three print media met Nathan is his chambers following Nathan's order yesterday for them to appear to explain an "inaccurate" report which was published.
The senior editors of national news agency Bernama, Azman Ujang, The Sun, Robert Ho, and New Straits Times, Syed Nazri Syed Harun (both dailies used Bernama news report about the suit) met Nathan, along with Rajasegaran's counsel DP Vijandran and the lawyer for the defendants, Malik Imtiaz.
No details of the meeting were revealed to the press but it is learnt that the editors have been asked to carry a retraction to their story.
The Bernama report dated Nov 1 stated that Malik had submitted that "the Bar Council's holding of an extraordinary general meeting (EGM), to discuss Chief Justice Eusoff Chin's conduct following reports in the media that Eusoff went to New Zealand for a vacation paid for by lawyer Datuk VK Lingam, was a noble act ..."
Nathan noted this was not said at all in the proceedings and asked the editors to appear before him to explain how this matter was published [#1] (Editors ordered to appear before court[/#], Nov 2).
Unfair treatment
In the proceedings today, Vijandran submitted that one of the allegations contained in the affidavit pertained to a lawyer drafting a judgment on behalf of a judge.
"No attempt was made by the defendants to even hear from the judge as to the truth (of this allegation). Even criminals in this country are asked to give a statement," said Vijandran.
"They should have met the judge concerned. They should have extended a basic courtesy and an adherence to the rule of law. They must hear from the other side."
He added that the Bar Council could have also spoken to the lawyer alleged to have drafted the judgment.
Bar disciplinary board
"If they were really interested in the truth, they could have not only spoken to the lawyer, but could have referred him to the Bar disciplinary board," he said.
The board is a very powerful one and could even set up an investigating tribunal, said Vijandran.
"They did not do that. They have the power to do that, but they decided not to do so. They say they will defer action against the lawyer until after the setting up of the Royal Commission and its findings," he added.
He also said that the manner in which the Bar Council decided to call for an EGM by solely relying on an affidavit was worrying.
"It is a contemptuous disregard of the law as pleadings are not evidence and a group of experienced and wise lawyers decided to rely on the pleadings alone."
He noted that the action was initiated by his client not with the intention of destroying the Bar Council but to solve its identity crisis.
"We want to establish a guideline to solve a problem arising from the council which does not know the ambit of its powers," he said.
Plaintiff not affected
Malik responded by stating that for Rajasegaran to succeed in this suit, he must show his precise interest in the matter.
"Showing interest in the larger sense is not sufficient. He must show how he is effected by the calling of the EGM," he said.
He also said that if at all any criminal action was to be taken by the police against the Bar over the EGM, it will only affect those who attended the meeting as well as the people who set up the meeting.
Meanwhile, the Federal Court will hear a leave application by the defendants on Nov 15 to appeal against the Court of Appeal decisions upholding Nathan's rulings on preliminary matters.
Nathan had earlier dismissed the defendants' application to strike out this suit as well as the application to set aside an injunction granted to Rajasegaran to stop the defendants from holding the EGM on Nov 20 last year.
The defendants appealed against the decisions and the Court of Appeal had on July 12 dismissed their appeals [#2]('Unconstitutional for public to discuss judiciary's conduct openly'[/#], July 12).
View Comments0