A) Derek Chin, Berjaya Group/Corporation
Much has been said about VK Lingam and Vincent Tan of the Berjaya Group/Corporation and their dealings with the judiciary.
An important issue that yet to be addressed is the question of where evidence of their dealings in this regard might be found.
The answer may be in the person of Derek Chin Chee Seng, a long-term legal adviser employed by Berjaya Group/Corporation. He has been known to have extensive communications with VK Lingam personally.
Other Matters, Other Judges
A) Siti Mariam Othman
The Federal Court today maintained the costs of RM600,000 which it had ordered the Bar Council to pay lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam over a failed disciplinary complaint.
The sum of RM600,000 as a "getting up fee" was maintained by Federal Court deputy registrar Siti Mariam Othman, who heard the review in chambers today. (Getting up means research and preparation for the trial.)
The council had applied for the review after Siti Mariam awarded the costs to Kanagalingam, better known as V.K. Lingam, on May 7.
(Source:National Court maintains costs of RM600,000 to lawyer
17 July 1999,The New Straits Times)
b) Azmel Ma'amor (previously mentioned),Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Zainun Ali
The High Court today allowed with costs an appeal by lawyer Datuk V. Kanagalingam against the Advocates and Solicitors' Disciplinary Board decision that there was merit in two complaints of alleged misconduct lodged against him by the Malaysian Bar.
Judge Datuk Azmel Ma'amor, who sat with Datuk Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin and Datuk Zainun Ali, set aside the board's decision, which had also recommended an investigation into the complaints.
Kanagalingam was represented by V. Sithambaram and Wong Kee Tem and the Malaysian Bar by Datuk Bastian Vendargon.
He had also applied for a stay to stop the Malaysian Bar's tribunal from inquiring into the complaints.
The matter before the Appellate and Special Powers Division of the High Court was scheduled for hearing last Monday.
However, Judicial Commissioner Wan Afrah Wan Ibrahim postponed it to Thursday pending this appeal. On June 18, Kanagalingam obtained from the High Court (Appellate and Special Powers Division) an interim stay for the tribunal to conduct the investigation. The Malaysian Bar on Aug 6 last year lodged two complaints of misconduct.
The first was that he did not reply to four letters - dated Aug 27, 1998, Sept 29, 1998, Oct 7, 1998 and Nov 16, 1998 - sent by the Bar to him and therefore had committed a breach of Ruling 10(b) Part H of the Ruling of the Bar Council 1997.
The second complaint was in relation to an allegation in The Star dated Aug 31, 1999, pertaining to a pending civil suit.
(Source:18 November 2003,New Straits Times)
c)Pajan Singh Gill,Rahmah Hussain and Hashim Yusoff
The Malaysian Bar today failed in its bid to set aside a High Court verdict allowing lawyer V. Kanagalingam's appeal against a decision by the Advocates and Solicitors' Disciplinary Board pertaining to complaints of his alleged misconduct.
Federal Court judges Datuk Pajan Singh Gill and Datin Paduka Rahmah Hussain and Court of Appeal judge Datuk Hashim Yusoff, in unanimously dismissing the Malaysian Bar's appeal with costs, agreed with the submissions of Kanagalingam's counsel that the disciplinary board's decision was appealable to the High Court under Section 103E of the Legal Profession Act.
Justice Hashim, who read out the nine-page judgment, said the court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the court below.
The Malaysian Bar had appealed against the High Court's verdict delivered on Nov 17, last year, to allow Kanagalingam's appeal against the Disciplinary Board's decision that there was merit in two complaints of alleged misconduct lodged against Kanagalingam by the Bar.
The High Court had also set aside the board's recommendation that a tribunal be set up to investigate the complaints.
The Malaysian Bar on Aug 6, 2002, lodged two complaints of alleged misconduct against Kanagalingam.
The first was that he did not reply to four letters sent by the Bar to him and therefore had committed a breach of Ruling 10 (b) Part H of the Ruling of the Bar Council 1997 and the second complaint was in relation to an allegation in the Star dated Aug 31, 1999, pertaining to a pending civil suit.
(Source:FEDERAL COURT DISMISSES MALAYSIAN BAR'S APPEAL,24 August 2004
Bernama Daily Malaysian News)