EE SOON GUAN SDN. BHD. v 1. ) LEONG WAI HAR 2. ) Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan

wa-24ncc-202-04-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 3 April 2025 • WA-24NCC-202-04/2024 • 15 min read
3 cases cited (0 SG, 3 foreign)

Catchwords

right to counsel of choice-court has an inherent power to bar counsel-administration of justice-requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public-Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978-rules 3, 4, 5, 27 and 28-Rule 4. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if professional conduct likely to be impugned-Rule 5. No advocate and solicitor to accept brief if difficult to maintain professional independence-Rule 27. Advocate and solicitor not to appear where pecuniarily interested-Rule 28. Advocate and solicitor not to appear in a case where he is a witness-Under common law a lawyer can also be disqualified from acting in a case on these grounds -Conflict of interest-Possession of confidential information in a non-client relationship; and-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-To disqualify a lawyer on the ground of Conflict of interest the following two criteria must be satisfied:-There must be an established relationship of solicitor and client; and -There must be confidential information conveyed to the solicitor-Even without a formal lawyer-client relationship, a lawyer may be disqualified if he or she has received confidential information from a party expecting it would be kept private-Appearance of Impropriety on the part of the lawyer such that justice would not be seen to be done-For this ground there need not be an existing relationship of solicitor and client or that confidential information had been conveyed to the solicitor.-The court has an inherent power to control the right of audience and bar lawyers who has a conflict of interest, or in which he appears to have a conflict of interest such that justice would not be seen to be done. -This power does not depend on the rules of professional conduct made by the legal profession and is not limited to cases where the rules are breached. The issue is not whether or not the rule was breached. The issue is whether the fair minded reasonably informed member of the public would conclude that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the solicitor.-The public interest in the administration of justice requires an unqualified perception of its fairness in the eyes of the general public. The goal is not just to protect the interests of the individual litigant but even more importantly to protect public confidence in the administration of justice.-justice would not be seen to be done if-counsel took sides

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Leong Wai Hong Delivered

Counsel (8)

Felix Raj Chambers Firm Lee & Poh Partnership Firm W H Kan Firm Goh Loh Boon Counsel Defendant Joseph Lum Counsel Defendant O Ying Xin Counsel Plaintiff Ryan Chu Soon Wei Counsel Plaintiff Suhirthamalar a/p Sandeasekaran Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

EE SOON GUAN Sdn Bhd Applicant Leong Wai Har Respondent Wakil Harta Pusaka Lee Soo Guan @ Ee Soon Guan Respondent

Statutes Cited

Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
s 551(1)
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (3)

MY (3)
[1992] 2 MLJ 217 [2003] 4 MLJ 569 [2025] 6 AMR 433

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncc-202-04-2024)