The High Court on October 31 dismissed an application by plaintiffs seeking to disqualify the defendant’s lawyers, Yusof Halim and Partners (YHP), from acting in a complex land development dispute in Mukim Kilanas.
The plaintiffs argued that YHP’s involvement constituted a conflict of interest, asserting that YHP had previously represented them in related proceedings, creating potential ethical and procedural issues under the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules, 2013.
The case, heard by Justice Edward Timothy Starbuck Woolley, stemmed from a 2009 development agreement, in which the plaintiffs, beneficiaries of the disputed land, had initially relied on YHP’s predecessor firm, Messrs Cheok Sankaran Halim, to assist in reclaiming the land from a relative.
The plaintiffs, Mahdi bin Haji Suhaili; Mohammad Sa’adon Suhaili bin Md Shafi’ee; Mas Suhaili Zahrah binti Md Shafi’ee; Mohamad Same’on Suhaili bin Md Shafi’ee; Mohamad Sofian bin Haji Bujang; Sa’adah @ Netty binti Haji Bujang; Selamah binti Haji Bujang; and Netty Rozaina binti Haji Bujang, alleged YHP’s past involvement raised concerns over impartiality and independence in their current representation of the defendant, Syarikat Perusahaan Sinar Hijau Sdn Bhd.
The plaintiffs’ counsel, Wong Mew Sum of Abrahams, Davidson and Co, contended that YHP’s past role could compromise their ability to act independently, highlighting specific instances where YHP members, including Geraldine Tech and Eugene Loh, might be called as witnesses.
This, the plaintiffs argued, would contravene Rules 27 and 28, which prohibit legal representatives from acting when they may become witnesses on contentious matters.
However, Brandon Chin Wei Chun, representing YHP, countered that the plaintiffs had no separate legal counsel at the time, and YHP’s role was limited to facilitating the development agreement. He emphasised that YHP’s involvement was both consensual and beneficial to all parties then, with no apparent conflict until the recent application.
In his ruling, Justice Woolley noted the significant passage of time – 18 years – since YHP’s initial representation, and ruled that the plaintiffs’ delayed objection barred their complaint.
Additionally, he found no sufficient conflict of interest, as YHP’s prior assistance was mutually beneficial and procedural rather than adversarial.
“The plaintiffs did not raise any issue regarding YHP’s involvement until recently,” Justice Woolley noted. “The delay in filing this application weakens their argument.”
Justice Woolley concluded that requiring YHP to withdraw would be unwarranted as the grounds did not substantiate a breach of the Legal Profession Rules. The case will proceed with YHP retained as counsel for the defendant.
Justice Woolley also ordered costs to be awarded to the defendant. – Fadley Faisal
