A lawyer challenged the findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society against him before the High Court recently.
Plaintiff Lim Chin Wah representing himself, sought orders alleging unjust disciplinary action and errors in fact and law.
The Law Society, represented by messrs AIP lawyers Navasiwayam Kanasan and Abdul Muqtadir Awang Haji Suhaime, contended that they were in the nature of judicial review, prohibited by Article 84C of the Constitution.
In the disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Committee on December 13, 2022 found Lim Chin Wah in breach of specific rules governing advocates and solicitors. The plaintiff sought orders claiming unjust actions, factual and legal inaccuracies, and an injunction against further disciplinary measures.
The Law Society argued that the proceedings amounted to judicial review and were prohibited under Article 84C of the Constitution.
Article 84C of the Constitution expressly prohibits judicial review in Brunei Darussalam, restricting challenges to acts, decisions, or omissions by public entities.
The court examined the precedent set in a case law involving the Council of the Law Society of Brunei Darussalam versus counsel, emphasising the Law Society’s disciplinary actions fell under public functions, making judicial review impermissible.
The plaintiff’s argument under Section 63 of the Legal Profession Act, asserting the Law Society’s corporate status, was dismissed, as the prohibition centred on the Disciplinary Committee’s public duty, not the Law Society’s legal status.
Lim Chin Wah raised concerns about delays in the proceedings, citing a breach of Section 57(3) of the Legal Profession Order. However, the court, following precedent, held that the prohibition on judicial review took precedence over delays.
The plaintiff also argued, raising mala fides but the court dismissed it, noting the absence of evidence and the belated introduction of this claim. Judicial Commissioner Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley, in his November 6 decision, concluded that the nature of the plaintiff’s action constituted a judicial review, falling within the ambit of Article 84C.
Consequently, he ruled in favour of the Law Society, prohibiting further proceedings. The court also ordered the Law Society to be awarded costs for the application and the proceedings. – Fadley Faisal
