HOW CHEE HONG v 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP BENG FATT 4. ) LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA

w-02a-60-01-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 7 January 2026 • W-02(A)-60-01/2023 • 29 min read

8 cases cited (1 SG, 7 foreign)

Catchwords

Legal Profession - Disciplinary Committee - Inquiry by the Disciplinary Committee — Appointment of Disciplinary Committee was delayed - Appellant filed originating summons seeking a declaration that the Disciplinary Board's appointment of the Disciplinary Committee members was out of time in accordance with section 103A of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) – time stipulated in the LPA is mandatory - non-compliance renders the proceedings invalid - Whether High Court judge’s refusal to grant declaratory reliefs on basis of originating summons being premature was correct in law.

Practice Areas

Legal Profession

Judges (3)

Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Hashim bin Hamzah Coram Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz Delivered

Counsel (5)

Gunaseelan & Associates Firm Kumar Jaspal Quah & Aishah Firm Datuk Vignesh Kumar Counsel Appellant Keshvinjeet Singh Counsel Respondent Yasinthra a/p Dorairaju Counsel Appellant

Parties (5)

LEMBAGA TATATERTIB PEGUAM BELA & PEGUAM CARA Respondent How Chee Hong Appellant Kan Weng Hin Respondent Melvin Selvam a/l Thambirajah Respondent Yip Beng Fatt Respondent

Case Significance

HOW CHEE HONG v 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP... is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated January 7, 2026 (citation: w-02a-60-01-2023). <p>Advocate How Chee Hong appealed against the High Court's dismissal of his challenge to the Disciplinary Board's appointment of a reconstituted Disciplinary Committee to investigate complaints regarding alleged impropriety of a RM35 million judgment sum paid into a law firm's client account. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the mandatory time requirements under Section 103A of the Legal Profession Act, as the reconstituted DC commenced its inquiry with The panel comprised Azmi bin Ariffin, Hashim bin Hamzah and Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz, with Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Datuk Vignesh Kumar (counsel for appellant), Keshvinjeet Singh (counsel for respondent), Yasinthra a/p Dorairaju (counsel for appellant).

Summary

Advocate How Chee Hong appealed against the High Court's dismissal of his challenge to the Disciplinary Board's appointment of a reconstituted Disciplinary Committee to investigate complaints regarding alleged impropriety of a RM35 million judgment sum paid into a law firm's client account. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of the mandatory time requirements under Section 103A of the Legal Profession Act, as the reconstituted DC commenced its inquiry within one month of appointment and the 6-year limitation period did not apply given the nature of the Bar Council's complaints.

What was the outcome of HOW CHEE HONG v 1. ) KAN WENG HIN 2. ) MELVIN SELVAM A/L THAMBIRAJAH 3. ) YIP...?

<p>Advocate How Chee Hong appealed against the High Court's dismissal of his challenge to the Disciplinary Board's appointment of a reconstituted Disc...

Statutes Cited

Legal Profession Act 1976 (Cap 166)

Penal Code (Cap 574)

s 409

Cases Cited (8)

SLR (1)

[1994] 3 SLR 531

UK (1)

[1997] 2 All ER 366

MY (6)

[1971] 1 MLJ 139 [1993] 2 CLJ 417 [1993] 2 MLJ 57 [2002] 2 MLJ 413 [2021] 6 MLJ 563 [2023] 6 MLJ 77