TORT – ALL ADVOCATES AND SOLICITORS ARE BOUND TO RETURN THE STAKEHOLDER SUM TO CLIENTS

B, an advocate and solicitor has failed to make payment of the stakeholder sums to A. A has asked from B for the restitution but B refused to pay him back, for the reason that he was practising as partner but not sole proprietor. In fact, B without any express power under the Legal Profession Act 1976 (“LPA”) issued the Guidelines and restricted the claims only to acts of dishonesty of advocates and solicitors who were sole proprietors. A claims for compensation from the Compensation Fund.

Q: What is the purpose of the Compensation Fund?

A: To mitigate the losses suffered by the member of the public ie the client of an advocate and solicitor. In our case, A, who is a client to B is entitled to claim for the compensation.

Q: What does A need to prove?

A: B’s dishonesty act ie B refused to give back the monies to A.

Q: What is the relevant regulation?

A: S.80 LPA applies to all advocates and solicitors. It clearly allows A to make a claim from the compensation fund for any loss suffered by him from any dishonest act of:

  1. an advocate and solicitor, or
  2. his clerk or servant, or
  3. whether the advocate and solicitor was practising as sole proprietor or in partnership with others, or
  4. whether the advocate and solicitor had a valid practising certificate at the material time

Q: Can B, without any power conferred by the authorised personnel make his own Guidelines restricting the claims only to acts of dishonesty of advocate and solicitor who is practising as a sole proprietor?

A: B has in fact gone beyond the law as he has no authorisation to issue his Guidelines. As a result, his Guidelines clearly could not go against the provisions in s.80 of the Act, which will uphold him accountable to A’s compensation.

Recent Post

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »

JUDICIAL REVIEW – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND LOCUS STANDI

This excerpt illuminates the foundational principles of judicial review as outlined in Order 53 of the Rules of Court 2012. It highlights the criteria for challenging public decisions on grounds of illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. Central to the discussion is the question of timing in judicial review applications, particularly in cases of procedural unfairness. The practical scenario underscores the significance of a “decision” by the relevant authority as a prerequisite for locus standi, drawing insights from the case of Hisham bin Halim v Maya bt Ahmad Fuad & Ors [2023] 12 MLJ 714.

Read More »

CONTRACT LAW – CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION REMEDIES UNVEILED: DECIPHERING CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES AND LEGAL BALANCE

This legal updates explore the principles governing the interpretation of agreements, emphasizing the importance of clarity and unambiguity in contractual terms. It delves into a key issue involving restrictions on remedies for breach of contract, shedding light on the court’s commitment to upholding plain meanings. The illustrative scenario involving shareholders X and Y dissects a pertinent clause, showcasing the delicate balance between restricting remedies and ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?