PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court has ruled that a retired Federal Court judge can act as counsel in a civil matter before the apex court.
The panel, chaired by Court of Appeal president Justice Raus Sharif, ruled that there was no legal basis for the application to deny former judge Datuk Seri Gopal Sri Ram from acting as counsel.
Pasukhas Constructions Sdn Bhd and I-Innovations Construction Sdn Bhd had applied to deny Sri Ram from acting for MTM Millennium Holdings Sdn Bhd in a civil dispute over a construction project in Cherating, Pahang.
The Federal Court also accepted an apology from the construction companies’ counsel, Gideon Tan, over allegations made in an affidavit by his clients and did not commence contempt proceedings.
The panel, which included Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Richard Malanjum, Justices Ahmad Maarop, Suriyadi Halim Omar and Zaleha Zahari, dismissed the application with RM10,000 in cost.
Justice Suriyadi noted that the application ran foul of provisions under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right of a citizen to earn a living.
Tan had earlier submitted that Gopal should be disqualified from acting as counsel as he was a retired judge and that his appearance would give the impression that the administration of justice may be compromised.
In an affidavit in support, I-Innovations Construction Sdn Bhd director Gan Thian Gee, said that having Gopal address his peers gave the impression that there was a danger of a lack of impartiality.
Counsel for MTM Millennium, Datuk Harpal Singh Grewal, applied to cite Gan and his lawyer for scandalising the court in the affidavit.
Harpal argued that Section 35 of the Legal Profession Act does not prevent any advocate or solicitor, be he a retired judge, from appearing before any court.
“Section 36 of the Act also provides that any person that is on the roll of advocates and solicitors and in possession of a valid certificate, has the right to appear,” he added.
MTM Millennium is seeking leave from the Federal Court to determine whether a contractor who enters into a contract without a proper licence under the Construction Industry Development Board Act can enforce the contract.
The question was part of an appeal against the Court of Appeal’s June 17 decision to uphold the High Court ruling and would be heard on October 30.
On January 17, the High Court held that registration requirements under the act were merely administrative guidelines and therefore, no question of illegality arose.
-THE STAR
