Why were Tommy Thomas and Tan Sri VC George not ordered to pay damages?

Question

Accepted Answer

Tommy Thomas and Tan Sri VC George Were Not Ordered to Pay Damages Because They Are Not Statutory Bodies Bound by Legal Profession Act Provisions

The Federal Court ruled that former Attorney General Tan Sri Tommy Thomas and former Court of Appeal judge Tan Sri VC George were not subject to the same damages order as the Malaysian Bar because they are not statutory bodies. Consequently, they are not bound by the specific provisions of Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976, which governs complaints against legal practitioners. The court's decision focused on the Malaysian Bar's breach of statutory duty, as it was the Bar that unlawfully processed a motion condemning lawyer Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah's conduct.
The Malaysian Bar's Breach of Statutory Duty

Justice Abdul Rahman Sebli, delivering the unanimous decision, highlighted that the Malaysian Bar committed a "far more serious breach of the law." This occurred when the Bar published a motion on its website and presented it for resolution at its Annual General Meeting (AGM). This action was deemed illegal, grossly unfair, and highly prejudicial to Muhammad Shafee, as it amounted to prejudging his guilt before disciplinary proceedings could conclude.
Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976

The court emphasized that Section 99(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 mandates that any complaint concerning the conduct of an advocate and solicitor must be in writing and initially referred to the Disciplinary Board. Allowing a complaint to be lodged through a motion at a Malaysian Bar AGM, as proposed by Thomas and George, would render Section 99(1) meaningless. The Malaysian Bar, according to the court, has no legal or factual basis to handle misconduct complaints against advocates and solicitors.
Authority Vested in the Disciplinary Board

The power to discipline advocates and solicitors is exclusively vested in the Disciplinary Board. The Federal Court clarified that the Malaysian Bar is not empowered to deal with misconduct complaints, whether by way of motion or any other method. The court found the Malaysian Bar's actions particularly concerning, given its role as the guardian of the Legal Profession Act and its awareness of the correct procedural steps for handling such complaints.
Scope of the Appeal

The appeal specifically addressed the tort of breach of statutory duty by the respondents. It did not delve into the causes of action for defamation or conspiracy to defame. Furthermore, the Federal Court explicitly stated that the question of whether Muhammad Shafee was guilty of misconduct is a matter solely for the Disciplinary Board to determine, and not for the court in this particular appeal.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Why were Tommy Thomas and Tan Sri VC George not ordered to pay damages?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends