Legal Profession
60 cases · June 2017 to June 2026
Overview
Legal Profession appears in 60 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).
In this practice area
Legal Profession collects the disputes concerning advocates and solicitors and the regulation of the profession under the Legal Profession Act 1976. The judgments concern disciplinary proceedings, professional misconduct, solicitor-client privilege, and the compensation available to those who suffer loss through a solicitor's default.
Disciplinary proceedings are a central subject. Judgments examine complaints of professional misconduct before the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary Committee, the right of an advocate and solicitor to be heard under section 103D of the Legal Profession Act 1976, and appeals to the High Court against the Board's orders under sections 103E and related provisions. The collection includes proceedings brought by the Bar Council (Majlis Peguam Malaysia) and the Bar Malaysia, and the standard applied where misconduct such as criminal breach of trust or dishonesty is alleged.
Related questions run through the area. The Compensation Fund established under the Legal Profession Act 1976, and claims for compensation by members of the public who have lost money through a solicitor, form a distinct strand. Solicitor-client privilege and professional communications, the responsibility of a firm to its clients, and the conduct of a solicitor in describing an opposing party also appear. The collection includes matters concerning a member of the Bar moving by motion under section 64(6) of the Act.
The cases sit mainly in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on questions of principle about the regulation of the profession. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts uphold the standards of the legal profession — reviewing disciplinary decisions, protecting privileged communications, and giving effect to the Compensation Fund — while ensuring that an advocate and solicitor facing discipline receives the fair procedure the Act requires. The recurring appeals against disciplinary orders show that the balance between accountability and fair process is itself frequently contested.
Case Volume by Year
3 17
1 19
1 21
1 22
3 23
14 24
25 25
12 26
2017–2026
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of Disciplinary Board — Whether appeal should have been filed in Kuala Lumpur High Court — Order 55A Rule 1(1) Rules of Court 2012 — Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court branches — Whether appeal filed out of time — Section 103E Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether administrator of deceased's estate has locus standi to appeal — "Any party aggrieved" — Whether stakeholder's breach constitutes professional misconduct — Sections 94(3)(c), (n), (o) and 112(1)(a) Legal Profession Act 1976 1 Professional misconduct — Solicitor acting as stakeholder — Breach of fiduciary duties — Solicitor purchasing properties the subject of conveyancing transaction — Whether conduct fell within prohibition under Section 112(1)(a) Legal Profession Act 1976 — Failure to protect interests of party who had paid for properties — Whether conduct unbefitting of advocate and solicitor — Whether brings profession into disrepute — Appeal allowed — Disciplinary Board's decision set aside — Matter remitted to Disciplinary Board for penalty 1 Admission to the Bar — Pupillage — Pupil — Requirement of short call order — Legal Profession Act 1976, ss 11(1)(e), 15(3)(h), 36(2), 36(2A) — Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2025 — Statutory linkage between pupillage, limited rights of audience and admission. 1 Advocate and solicitor — Retainer — Termination by client — Right to change solicitor — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 120 — Rules and Rulings of Bar Council — Consent of solicitor on record — Effect of termination on authority to act. 1 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. 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the absence of the Appellant’s personal culpability in the allegation of misconduct — Whether HCJ misdirected herself in applying section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961 instead 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Appellant not allowed to call witness at DC proceedings — Whether there was failure by HCJ in addressing issue of breach of natural justice during the hearing before the DC 1 Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof at DC proceedings. 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Solicitor’s undertaking — Conditional undertaking issued by Legal Assistant — Firm discharged before receipt of funds — Cheque returned undeposited — Whether undertaking matured into binding obligation — Whether Legal Assistant personally liable for firm issued undertaking — Whether termination of retainer extinguished authority — Whether disciplinary proceedings flawed — Absence of complainant at inquiry — Denial of cross-examination rights — Standard of proof not stated — Increase of fine by Disciplinary Board without reasons — Whether serious procedural irregularities vitiated proceedings — Whether prejudice caused to solicitor — Whether decision of Disciplinary Board and Disciplinary Committee liable to be set aside — Legal Profession Act 1976 ss 94(2)(c), 94(3)(d), 100, 103, 103B, 103C, 103D, 103E, 138 — Legal Profession (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2017 rr 14, 16, 27 1 Practising advocate and solicitor — Duties of solicitor — Stakeholder — Trustee — Agent — Solicitor's lien 1 Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) — Complaint — Professional discipline — Misconduct — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Whether disciplinary board (“DB”) had erred in dismissing the complaint under s 100(3)(a) of the LPA — Whether appellate interference warranted 1 Professional discipline — Misconduct — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Duties of stakeholder — Whether stakeholder is obligated to follow the instructions of the party who appointed him or the terms of the stakeholding agreement — Whether stakeholder should release the deposit when conditions precedent are not met — Whether stakeholder acted in accordance with the terms of the stakeholding — Whether terms of the stakeholding have been complied with — Whether respondent’s refusal to release the Deposit to the appellant was justified — Whether refusal constituted misconduct 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board/Committee — Disciplinary Board (‘DB’) affirmed Disciplinary Committee’s (‘DC’) decision on liability that appellant committed misconduct under s 94(3)(n) and (o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) 1 DB affirmed the DC’s findings on liability — s 103D(1) LPA — DB rejected the recommendation on punishment of restitution by the DC 1 Professional negligence — Whether there was solicitor-client relationship between plaintiff and respondent — Whether plaintiff could disavow that there was any solicitor-client relationship with plaintiff 1 Disciplinary Board — Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct — Complaint dismissed by Disciplinary Board — Appeal to High Court dismissed — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed — Whether letter of complaint amounted to complain as envisaged by Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether respondent drafted or involved in drafting of statutory declaration — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 99 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board (DB) /Committee (DC) — Appeal — Legal firm represented orang asli beneficiaries in claim regarding compensation for acquisition of ancestral land — Judgment obtained against Johor State Government — Compensation monies paid out to legal firm but not given to orang asli beneficiaries — Complaint by respondent, an advocate and solicitor on behalf of Saling — Whether DB/DC had jurisdiction to register/set up and inquire into this complaint — Whether proceedings before DB/DC were properly conducted — Principle of proportionality and the principles of sentencing in meeting out sentences —Whether name of 1st appellant as advocate and solicitor ought to be struck off Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors — Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166],section 94(3), section 103 (1A), section 103B (1), Section 103B (2), section 103C 1 Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of disciplinary board — Whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring charge to be specifically framed or preferred against advocate and solicitor in disciplinary proceedings — Whether there was any prejudice or denial of natural justice to advocate or solicitor — Whether DB and DC required to frame specific charge against advocate and solicitor — Whether findings of DC and DB in disciplinary proceedings fell within scope of complaint — Whether DB had power to enhance punishment recommended by DC without giving reasons — Whether period of suspension imposed unreasonable and inappropriate 1
Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of Disciplinary Board — Whether appeal should have been filed in Kuala Lumpur High Court — Order 55A Rule 1(1) Rules of Court 2012 — Concurrent jurisdiction of High Court branches — Whether appeal filed out of time — Section 103E Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether administrator of deceased's estate has locus standi to appeal — "Any party aggrieved" — Whether stakeholder's breach constitutes professional misconduct — Sections 94(3)(c), (n), (o) and 112(1)(a) Legal Profession Act 1976 1 case
Professional misconduct — Solicitor acting as stakeholder — Breach of fiduciary duties — Solicitor purchasing properties the subject of conveyancing transaction — Whether conduct fell within prohibition under Section 112(1)(a) Legal Profession Act 1976 — Failure to protect interests of party who had paid for properties — Whether conduct unbefitting of advocate and solicitor — Whether brings profession into disrepute — Appeal allowed — Disciplinary Board's decision set aside — Matter remitted to Disciplinary Board for penalty 1 case
Admission to the Bar — Pupillage — Pupil — Requirement of short call order — Legal Profession Act 1976, ss 11(1)(e), 15(3)(h), 36(2), 36(2A) — Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2025 — Statutory linkage between pupillage, limited rights of audience and admission. 1 case
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. 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board (“DB”) Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the absence of the Appellant’s personal culpability in the allegation of misconduct — Whether HCJ misdirected herself in applying section 12 of the Partnership Act 1961 instead 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against the DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Appellant not allowed to call witness at DC proceedings — Whether there was failure by HCJ in addressing issue of breach of natural justice during the hearing before the DC 1 case
Dismissal by HCJ of Appellant’s appeal against DB's Order which ordered that the Appellant (a) be suspended for six months; and (b) pay a fine amounting to MYR50,000 — Whether there was failure by HCJ to appreciate the beyond reasonable doubt standard of proof at DC proceedings. 1 case
Practising advocate and solicitor — Duties of solicitor — Stakeholder — Trustee — Agent — Solicitor's lien 1 case
Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) — Complaint — Professional discipline — Misconduct — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Whether disciplinary board (“DB”) had erred in dismissing the complaint under s 100(3)(a) of the LPA — Whether appellate interference warranted 1 case
Professional discipline — Misconduct — Breach of solicitor’s undertaking — Duties of stakeholder — Whether stakeholder is obligated to follow the instructions of the party who appointed him or the terms of the stakeholding agreement — Whether stakeholder should release the deposit when conditions precedent are not met — Whether stakeholder acted in accordance with the terms of the stakeholding — Whether terms of the stakeholding have been complied with — Whether respondent’s refusal to release the Deposit to the appellant was justified — Whether refusal constituted misconduct 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board/Committee — Disciplinary Board (‘DB’) affirmed Disciplinary Committee’s (‘DC’) decision on liability that appellant committed misconduct under s 94(3)(n) and (o) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) 1 case
DB affirmed the DC’s findings on liability — s 103D(1) LPA — DB rejected the recommendation on punishment of restitution by the DC 1 case
Professional negligence — Whether there was solicitor-client relationship between plaintiff and respondent — Whether plaintiff could disavow that there was any solicitor-client relationship with plaintiff 1 case
Disciplinary Board — Complaint against advocate for professional misconduct — Complaint dismissed by Disciplinary Board — Appeal to High Court dismissed — Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed — Whether letter of complaint amounted to complain as envisaged by Legal Profession Act 1976 — Whether respondent drafted or involved in drafting of statutory declaration — Legal Profession Act 1976 s 99 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary Board (DB) /Committee (DC) — Appeal — Legal firm represented orang asli beneficiaries in claim regarding compensation for acquisition of ancestral land — Judgment obtained against Johor State Government — Compensation monies paid out to legal firm but not given to orang asli beneficiaries — Complaint by respondent, an advocate and solicitor on behalf of Saling — Whether DB/DC had jurisdiction to register/set up and inquire into this complaint — Whether proceedings before DB/DC were properly conducted — Principle of proportionality and the principles of sentencing in meeting out sentences —Whether name of 1st appellant as advocate and solicitor ought to be struck off Rolls of Advocates and Solicitors — Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166],section 94(3), section 103 (1A), section 103B (1), Section 103B (2), section 103C 1 case
Disciplinary proceedings — Appeal against decision of disciplinary board — Whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring charge to be specifically framed or preferred against advocate and solicitor in disciplinary proceedings — Whether there was any prejudice or denial of natural justice to advocate or solicitor — Whether DB and DC required to frame specific charge against advocate and solicitor — Whether findings of DC and DB in disciplinary proceedings fell within scope of complaint — Whether DB had power to enhance punishment recommended by DC without giving reasons — Whether period of suspension imposed unreasonable and inappropriate 1 case
Key Statutes
Legal Profession Act 1976 (Cap 166)
cited in 16 cases Rules of Court 2012
cited in 10 cases Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)
cited in 3 cases Penal Code (Cap 574)
cited in 2 cases Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 2 cases Insolvency Act 1967 (Cap 360)
cited in 1 case Partnership Act 1961
cited in 1 case Partnership Act
cited in 1 case Supreme Court Act 1981
cited in 1 case Subordinate Courts Act 1948 (Cap 92)
cited in 1 case Companies Act 1965 (Cap 777)
cited in 1 case Civil Law Act 1956
cited in 1 case Limitation Act 1953 (Cap 254)
cited in 1 case Income Tax Act 1967 (Cap 53)
cited in 1 case Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh 8 Aliza binti Sulaiman 4 Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid 4 Panglima Richard Malanjum 3 Abdul Rahman bin Sebli 3 Raja Segaran a/l S.krishnan 3 Ramly bin Haji Ali 2 Ahmad bin Haji Maarop 2 Zaharah binti Ibrahim 2 Azahar bin Mohamed 2 Prasad Sandosham Abraham 2 Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli 2 Narkunavathy Sundareson 2 Roslan bin Mat Nor 2 Wendy Ooi Su Ghee 2
Top Firms
Phee, Chen & Ung 2 Selvam Shanmugam & Partners 1 Zailan & Co. 1 Amran Joseph Chan & Co 1 Josephine, L K Chow & Co 1 JT Chong Associates 1 Kiranjit Randhawa & Co 1 Geethan Ram 1 Shearn Delamore & Co. 1 Justin Voon Chooi & Wing 1 Thomas Philips 1 CM Lai & Partners 1 Domnic Pragasam Tan & Co 1 Kanesalingam & Co 1 Louis Ambrose & Partners 1
Top Lawyers
Yong Li Tzer 2 Selvamary a/p Muniandy 1 Donald a/l Selvam 1 Loganathan a/l Gunasagaram 1 Mohd Nashriq Bin Zailanalhuddin 1 Shivdev Singh 1 Yung Chirt Kye 1 Lim Kien Huat 1 Cyndi Chow Li Kian 1 Chan Wei Yang 1 Hang Qiu Min 1 Chong Joo Tian 1 Muhammad Ashrul Haikal bin Ashri 1 Lavanyia A/P Raja 1 Alvin Lai Kok Wing 1
How many Legal Profession cases are reported in Malaysia courts?
60 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Legal Profession.
What does the Legal Profession area cover?
It covers the regulation of advocates and solicitors under the Legal Profession Act 1976: disciplinary proceedings and professional misconduct, solicitor-client privilege, and claims on the Compensation Fund for loss caused by a solicitor's default.
How are disciplinary complaints handled?
The judgments examine complaints before the Advocates and Solicitors Disciplinary Board and Committee, the right to be heard under section 103D, and appeals to the High Court under section 103E and related provisions. Proceedings are frequently brought by the Bar Council (Majlis Peguam Malaysia).
What is the Compensation Fund?
The Compensation Fund is established under the Legal Profession Act 1976 to compensate members of the public who lose money through a solicitor's default, for example through criminal breach of trust. The collection includes claims by affected members of the public against the Fund.
Cases
Page 1 of 3ta-17d-1-04-2025
MUHAMMAD ALIF IQBAL BIN MOHD RODI (SEBAGAI PENTADBIR HARTA PUSAKA MOHD RODI BIN SHARI) v 1. ) NORFAZILAWATI BINTI CHE HARUN 2. ) MOHD NASIR BIN ABDULLAH (BERAMAL ATAS NAMA DAN GAYA TETUAN NASIR & CO)
17 June 2026
MYHC
ma-17c-19-05-2026
MOHAMED MUSTHAFA
14 June 2026
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-172-10-2023
PACIFIC & ORIENT INSURANCE CO. BERHAD v 1. ) TETUAN K. SUGANTHI & COMPANY 2. ) SUGANTHI KUPPUSAMY 3. ) HEMA MALINI A/P KOLANDASAMY PENCELAH DICADANGKAN BAR COUNCIL MALAYSIA (WATCHING BRIEF)
11 June 2026
MYHC
wa-17d-42-12-2023
Pacific & Orient Insurance Co. Berhad v TETUAN K. SUGANTHI & COMPANY
25 May 2026
MYHC
ma-17c-15-03-2026
CHIA CHENG WEE
21 May 2026
MYHC
ma-23ncvc-3-03-2025
KHAREN JIT KAUR A/P LA CHIN SINGH v 1. ) NUURUL 'AZMI BIN ZAINAL ABIDIN 2. ) FAZNITA BINTI MOHD SALLEH
2 April 2026
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-395-06-2024
Christopher Shun Kong Leng v 1. ) Loo Kon Fah 2. ) Mohammad Danial Bin Mohizan
26 February 2026
MYHC
wa-17d-45-10-2024
FARAH FADHLINA BINTI MOHAMED SAZALI v AMBIGA A/P PANDIAN PENCELAH Majlis Peguam
22 February 2026
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-102-07-2024
YEOH JIN AIK v 1. ) TAN JIN KEAT 2. ) CIMB BANK BERHAD PENCELAH BADAN PEGUAM MALAYSIA
29 January 2026
MYHC
wa-17d-30-12-2020
RHB TRUSTEES BERHAD Pemegang Amanah Kepada Linggiu Valley Orang Asli (Jakuns) Trust v 1. ) TETUAN ROSLEY ZECHARIAH (Di Saman sebagai Firma) 2. ) Isharidah, Ho, Chong & Menon (Di Saman Sebagai Firma)
29 January 2026
MYHC
j-02a-125-01-2022
DATUK DR. YUNUS GUL BIN ALIF GUL v 1. ) SIM KUAN YEE 2. ) LAM SIEW WAN, NORA
18 January 2026
MYCOA
w-02a-60-01-2023
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
7 January 2026
MYCOA
aa-17d-1-01-2023
1. ) BALASUNDARAM A/L PALANISAMY 2. ) PREMA GEETHA A/P M RAMALINGAM v 1. ) MUNIANDY RAMACHANDRAN A/L NADASON 2. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
14 December 2025
MYHC
wa-17d-29-07-2024
Teo Ah Ai v Lembaga Tatatertib Peguam-Peguam PIHAK TERKILAN Majlis Peguam
9 December 2025
MYHC
ba-22ncvc-277-07-2025
PELABURAN HARTANAH BERHAD v COSMOPOLITAN AVENUE SDN. BHD.
3 December 2025
MYHC
wa-17d-26-06-2024
KHO KOK HONG v CHANDRA SRI RAM
2 November 2025
MYHC
wa-17d-6-02-2024
MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA v 1. ) MOHD ZAID BIN IBRAHIM 2. ) Liew Teck Huat 3. ) Rueben Mathiavaranam
6 October 2025
MYHC
ba-17d-2-05-2024
Tetuan Najib Hisham Isa v 1. ) Mohamed Basri bin Noor Mohamed 2. ) Nafisah binti Abdul Rahman
28 September 2025
MYHC
b-02a-1132-07-2024
LIM KIEN HUAT v 1. ) HO SHEN LEE (M) SDN BHD (Dalam Liquidasi) 2. ) TAN KEN MENG 3. ) KHOO CHUN FUN 4. ) MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
22 September 2025
MYCOA
wa-22ncvc-497-07-2021
MOHAMED HANIFF BIN KHATRI ABDULLA v 1. ) PARTI PRIBUMI BERSATU MALAYSIA 2. ) TAN SRI DATO' HAJI MAHIADDIN BIN MD YASIN 3. ) DATO' SERI HAMZAH ZAINUDIN 4. ) DATO' MOHAMED SALLEH BAJURI
24 August 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-55-02-2021
1. ) LIM YEOW HON 2. ) JONATHAN DAVID YULIAN 3. ) YEOH THEAM CHYE 4. ) TAN KEE LIN v 1. ) EUROLAND & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 2. ) CHOONG YUEN KEONG @ TONG YUEN KEONG 3. ) TONG YUN MONG 4. ) TONG KAH HOE 5. ) ONG KAR VOI 6. ) ALEX BOON THAI WOO 7. ) CHIN JING SHEN 8. ) TETUAN K.V. ONG, CHUA & PARTNERS 9. ) STEVEN TOH KANG NIAN 10. ) LIEW YUNG FAI 11. ) TEE SIOW CHING 12. ) TETUAN TOH LIEW & GENTRY
22 July 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncvc-247-04-2022
R&A TRADING (K.L.) SDN. BHD. v 1. ) JIWA RAKYAT SDN. BHD. 2. ) LIM AH LIM 3. ) CHAN YONG SIN 4. ) TETUAN ABDUL AZIZ RAHIM & CO.
3 July 2025
MYHC
aa-17d-1-07-2024
SAKTHIVEL NAGALINGAM OF MESSRS AMRAN JOSEPH CHAN & CO. v KUMARAPPAN @ THANNIRMALAI A/L K. M. PALANIAPPAN PENCELAH MAJLIS PEGUAM MALAYSIA
2 July 2025
MYHC
21ncvc-88-12-2015
1. ) FAZLI BIN SUBOH 2. ) UMI AL-KHAIR FATIMAH BINTI IDRIS 3. ) NUR DAMIA LUTFIAH BINTI FAZLI (SEORANG BUDAK MELALUI FAZLI BIN SUBOH BAPA DAN SAHABAT WAKILNYA) v 1. ) DR. FATIMAH BT AHMAD FAUZI 2. ) DR. VIJAYAN MUNUSAMY 3. ) PENGARAH HOSPITAL KUALA LUMPUR 4. ) KEMENTERIAN KESIHATAN MALAYSIA 5. ) Kerajaan Malaysia
23 June 2025
MYHC
pa-12ancvc-31-09-2024
1. ) VIKNEIS A/L BALAN (SEORANG PESAKIT MENDAKWA MELALUI BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO SEBAGAI WAKIL LITIGASI/SAHABAT WAKIL) 2. ) BALAN A/L VARATHARAJOO v TETUAN NM TIONG & CO
19 June 2025
MYHC