1. ) UNITED HIGHLANDS SDN. BHD. 2. ) SELESA HILLHOMES SERVICES SDN. BHD. v BADAN PENGURUSAN BERSAMA SELESA HILLHOMES

Case Significance

Reinforces the high threshold — the "ujian bendul" or bulwark test — for restraining an opposing party's solicitor from acting: speculation about a future change of committee, fee disputes, or authority is not enough, and the applicant must show cogent evidence of prejudice or conflict.

This High Court decision at Temerloh, Pahang, delivered by Judge Roslan bin Mat Nor, concerns an application by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendant's solicitor from continuing to act. The plaintiffs, United Highlands Sdn Bhd and Selesa Hillhomes Services Sdn Bhd, are companies in the property development and investment business; the defendant is a joint management body, Badan Pengurusan Bersama Selesa Hillhomes, constituted around 2008 under the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. By the application in question the plaintiffs sought to bar the advocate and solicitor Lai Chee Meng, practising under Messrs CM Lai & Partners, from acting for the defendant. Their grounds included a Strata Management Tribunal ruling that the defendant body had been unlawfully constituted, a related suit said to support that ruling, and assertions that the solicitor lacked authority from the defendant and that his continued conduct would be impugned or would compromise his professional independence.

The court dismissed the application. It examined whether the plaintiffs had established the threshold the authorities require before a solicitor will be removed — described in the judgment as the ujian bendul (the threshold, or "bulwark", test) — and held that the reasons advanced were insufficient to cross it. Concerns that a future change in the joint management committee might raise questions over the firm's fees or authority were held not to be a proper basis for disqualification. The court found no evidence that any injustice would be occasioned to the parties if the firm continued to represent the defendant, and no indication that the firm's continued representation would prejudice the proceedings between the parties. Because the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the requisite circumstances and could not pass the threshold test, the application was dismissed with costs. The decision reinforces that an application to remove opposing counsel demands cogent proof of prejudice or conflict, not speculation about future disputes over authority or fees.