2
BONIFAC LOBO ROBERT V LOBO V WONG WOOI MENG The plaintiff and the defendant file an application for leave to enter judgment in default of defence and application for leave to file his statement of defence out of time respectively. At the hearing, the plaintiff was present in chambers with his counsel and the defendant’s counsel. However, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the defendant’s counsel gave a notice of objection to Mr Lobo from appearing as his own counsel on three grounds. The grounds includes firstly, the plaintiff had personal interest in the outcome of the suit. Secondly, he had pecuniary interest in the claim of damages and thirdly, he would put himself in embarrassing position against Legal Profession Act 1976 and Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. The plaintiff opposed the preliminary objection as he was appearing and conducting case as a litigant and not as counsel. He also contended that the defendant’s preliminary objection was in breach of LPA and LP Rules for not giving him ample notice of the objection. The court allowed the preliminary objection made by the defendant as it is the court’s discretion whether or not to allow the preliminary objection. In exercising the discretion, the court will ensure that the plaintiff and the defendant would not be at a disadvantage. The plaintiff could represent himself in the proceedings provided that he has first discharge the appointed firm concerned to represent him, Messrs Surrend Mokhzani & Partners, and file a notice to act in person afterwards as stated under Order 64 rule 3 of the

Bonifac Lobo Robert v Lobo v Wong Wooi Meng

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

s

Citation preview

BONIFAC LOBO ROBERT V LOBO V WONG WOOI MENGThe plaintiff and the defendant file an application for leave to enter judgment in default of defence and application for leave to file his statement of defence out of time respectively. At the hearing, the plaintiff was present in chambers with his counsel and the defendants counsel. However, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the defendants counsel gave a notice of objection to Mr Lobo from appearing as his own counsel on three grounds. The grounds includes firstly, the plaintiff had personal interest in the outcome of the suit. Secondly, he had pecuniary interest in the claim of damages and thirdly, he would put himself in embarrassing position against Legal Profession Act 1976 and Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. The plaintiff opposed the preliminary objection as he was appearing and conducting case as a litigant and not as counsel. He also contended that the defendants preliminary objection was in breach of LPA and LP Rules for not giving him ample notice of the objection.The court allowed the preliminary objection made by the defendant as it is the courts discretion whether or not to allow the preliminary objection. In exercising the discretion, the court will ensure that the plaintiff and the defendant would not be at a disadvantage. The plaintiff could represent himself in the proceedings provided that he has first discharge the appointed firm concerned to represent him, Messrs Surrend Mokhzani & Partners, and file a notice to act in person afterwards as stated under Order 64 rule 3 of the Rules of Court 2012. Nonetheless, the plaintiff cannot represent himself in this case because he had a pecuniary interest in the suit which is prohibited under Rule 27 of the Legal Practice Rules and would raise the question on his impartiality. The defendant would feel that he was at a disadvantage if the plaintiff had been allowed to represent himself in the proceeding as the plaintiff was directly interested in pecuniary. In this case, the court had not prohibited the plaintiff from being represented by the solicitors of his choice but barred him from representing himself during the proceedings due to the fact that he has already made an appointment of counsel to act on his behalf. Order 5 rule 6 of Rules of Court 2012 allowed a person to initiate or carry out proceedings either by himself or a solicitor but a choice must be made between these two but in this case, he is prohibited by the rule to do so. The prohibition is to ensure that advocates and solicitors remain objective and partial when conducting their case and for the proceeding to be conducted fairly and reasonably.