Source: http://www.cljlaw.com/others/clj_bulletin/Bulletin_12_2015.htm
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 21:07:42
Document Index: 112671080

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art. 10', 'art. 10', 'art 6']

CLJ Bulletin, Issue 2015, Vol 12
a) TAN JYE YEE & ANOR v. PP
b) VOON LEE SHAN v. C/INSP I/14105 ANOI KIAN & ORS
b) CLJ 2015 Volume 2 (Part 5)
c) CLJ 2015 Volume 2 (Part 6)
[2013] 1 LNS 11
LEE WEE CHIAN lwn. LEE HUAT HUN
PERWARISAN: Wasiat - Keupayaan perwasiatan - Pewasiat berumur 80 tahun 5 bulan ketika wasiat dibuat - Paksaan atau frod - Kewujudan laporan polis berkenaan cap jari palsu pada wasiat - Sama ada cap jari pewasiat boleh disimpulkan telah diperoleh secara paksaan atau frod berdasarkan kewujudan laporan polis - Sama ada pewasiat berupaya untuk membuat wasiat dengan penuh sifat dewasa dan sukarela - Sama ada wasiat telah dibuat mengikut cara dan kehendak peruntukan s. 5(1),(2) Akta Wasiat 1959
PERWARISAN: Wasiat - Kesahihan - Wasiat kedua - Sama ada wasiat kedua adalah sah - Sama ada wasiat kedua merupakan wasiat yang terakhir pewasiat - Sama ada wasiat kedua mengatasi wasiat pertama - Akta Wasiat 1959, s. 15
[2013] 1 LNS 23
MOHD ASYRAF THIRU ABDULLAH ROSLAN ABDUL KARIM lwn. PP
UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rasuah - Secara rasuah memperoleh - Suapan wang tunai - Sama ada unsur memperoleh telah dibuktikan oleh pihak pendakwa - Sama ada permintaan atau tuntutan memperoleh wang suapan telah dibuktikan - Akta Pencegahan Rasuah 1997, s. 11(a)
PROSEDUR JENAYAH: Pertuduhan - Pindaan - Pertuduhan yang mempunyai kesilapan yang nyata - Pindaan diperingkat rayuan - Sama ada pertuduhan yang mempunyai kesilapan nyata boleh dipertahankan di sisi undang-undang - Sama ada mahkamah boleh meminda atau menyembuhkan kesilapan pada pertuduhan di peringkat rayuan - Kanun Prosedur Jenayah, s. 422
[2013] 1 LNS 1385
PP v. CHUA KIM HOCK & ORS
CRIMINAL LAW: Penal Code - s. 302 - Murder - Whether deceased died due to head injuries - Whether death caused by acts of the 4 accused persons - Intention of accused - Whether blows inflicted with intention of causing bodily injuries to deceased - Whether injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death - Whether there was common intention by all 4 accused to cause the death of deceased - s. 34 of the Penal Code - Whether acts were done in furtherance of their common intention - Whether each of the accused was liable for the criminal acts in the same manner as if the acts were done alone - Whether prosecution made out a prima facie case against all 4 accused persons
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Defence - Denial - Whether capable and equally sufficient to dislodge the prosecution's case - Whether defence created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case - Whether the prosecution proved the offence against the 4 accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt
EVIDENCE: Adverse inference - Failure of prosecution to call witness - Ker Li and her mother, who were both with PW-12 at the time of the assault, not called to testify - Whether these 2 witnesses were essential witnesses to unfold the full narrative of prosecution's case - Whether an exercise in redundancy to call both witnesses - Whether adverse inference rule should be invoked in favour of 4 accused persons
[2014] 1 LNS 318
JAMIE HUYNH XUAN NUONG v. RESCOM ASIA SDN BHD; NG LEONARD SOO MANN & ORS (PENCELAH RESPONDEN YANG DICADANGKAN)
CIVIL PROCEDURE: Intervener - Application for - Whether proposed co-respondents Interveners' application filed under O. 15 r. 6 Rules of Court 2012 (RC) was misconceived and bad in law - No provision under the Companies Act 1965 (CA) or the Winding Up Rules for a party to intervene - Winding Up Rules did not state RC inapplicable - Whether in the absence of any specific rules under the CA or the Winding-Up Rules, O. 15 r. 6 of the Rules of Court 2012 applied
COMPANY LAW: Winding-Up - Proceedings against company - Whether proposed co-respondents Interveners required to obtain leave to intervene in present proceedings - s. 226(3) of the Companies Act 1965 - Notice of Motion seeking leave to intervene (encl.47) was filed under the winding up proceedings - Whether encl. 47 was an "action or proceeding proceeded with or commenced against the company" under s. 226(3) CA - Whether encl 47 was a defensive action to oppose petitioner's application to appoint a private liquidator - Whether leave of the Winding-Up Court required
[2014] 1 LNS 320
TC THIRUMANEY CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v. GLOBAL GLOBE (M) SDN BHD
COMPANY LAW: Winding up - Petition - Notice of intention to appear - Application for special leave to be granted to respondent - Whether respondent had shown special circumstances warranting leave - Whether provision of Winding-Up Rules on Notice of Intention to Appear unclear - 2 schools of thoughts - Whether open to respondent to adopt which approach it preferred - Whether there was a blatant or deliberate disregard of the Winding-Up Rules by respondent or its solicitors in failing to serve the Notice of Intention to Appear under r. 28(1) Winding-Up Rules - Whether prejudice caused to petitioner
CLJ 2015 Volume 2 (Part 5)
Jason Chan Huan Seng & Ors v. PP
(Criminal Procedure; Words And Phrases - Application under s. 32 Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 - Whether appellants lawfully entitled to properties - Whether presumption of illegal property under s. 35 rebutted - "Proceedings under this Act" - Whether presumption of illegal property under s. 35 applied to proceedings under s. 32) [2015] 2 CLJ 605 [CA]
Jiddi Joned Enterprise Sdn Bhd & Ors v. Louis KH Wong & Co
(Contract - Misrepresentation - Letter confirming retention sum held by solicitor as stakeholder for real property gains tax - Solicitor subsequently denied deposit of retention sum by purchaser) [2015] 2 CLJ 644 [CA]
Nanda Kumar K Kaliapan v. PP & Another Appeal
(Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure; Evidence - Murder - Prima facie case - Failure of prosecution to call police witnesses during identification parade - Whether fatal) [2015] 2 CLJ 670 [CA]
Lau Suet Wan v. Hong Leong Assurance Bhd
(Insurance - Claims - High Court order pronouncing husband was missing and presumed dead obtained by wife - Insurance company refused claim stating policies had lapsed - Whether wife entitled to claim under policies)[2015] 2 CLJ 681 [HC]
Lembaga Kemajuan Tanah Persekutuan & Anor v. Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail & Ors
(Tort; Constitutional Law - Defamation - Libel - Whether plaintiffs local authorities - Whether s. 15(1) of Land Development Act 1956 provided plaintiffs right to sue and be sued - Freedom of expression - Whether defence of fair comment, justification and privilege exist as protection to freedom of expression - Federal Constitution, art. 10)[2015] 2 CLJ 692 [HC]
Setarabakat Sdn Bhd v. Evergreen Haven Sdn Bhd
(Company Law - Winding-up - Affidavits in opposition affirmed by contributory - Whether trustee had authority to act as agent of necessity)[2015] 2 CLJ 709 [HC]
(Civil Procedure - Contempt of court - Committal proceedings)[2015] 2 CLJ 720 [HC]
(Tort; Civil Procedure - Malicious prosecution - Whether defendants acted with reasonable and probable cause in instituting charges against plaintiff - Whether element of malice proved - Damages - Malicious prosecution)[2015] 2 CLJ 729 [HC]
Contempt of court - Committal proceedings - Whether contempt of court proven beyond reasonable doubt - Whether procedural safeguards strictly adhered to commit contemnor to prison
(Gunalan Muniandy JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 720 [HC]
Damages - Assessment of damages - Malicious prosecution - Compensatory damages - Whether amount of damages proved - Whether evidence adduced to assist court in quantifying damages - Whether plaintiff suffered injury to reputation and feelings - Whether nominal and exemplary damages awarded
(Mairin Idang JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 729 [HC]
Winding-up - Petition - Petition resisted by respondent and contributory - Affidavits in opposition affirmed by contributory - Whether affidavit in opposition on behalf of respondent could be affirmed by contributory as an agent of necessity - Whether trustee had authority to act as agent of necessity - Whether contributory entitled to oppose petition - Whether personal interest of contributory affected - Whether there was need to send invoices pertaining to amount due as claimed in notice - Whether petitioner's claim must be supported by court's judgment - Whether secured creditor could proceed to wind-up respondent - Whether there was bona fide dispute of debt
(Abu Bakar Jais JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 709 [HC]
Fundamental - Freedom of expression - Whether limited - Whether subject to restrictions - Whether there was balance between protection of reputation and freedom of expression - Whether defence of fair comment, justification and privilege exist as protection to freedom of expression - Federal Constitution, art. 10
(Kamaludin Md Said J) [2015] 2 CLJ 692 [HC]
Misrepresentation - Sale and purchase of property - Letter confirming retention sum held by solicitor as stakeholder for real property gains tax - Solicitor subsequently denied deposit of retention sum by purchaser - Whether solicitor received retention sum from purchaser - Whether solicitor misrepresented on instruction of purchaser
(Abdul Wahab Patail, Mohd Zawawi Salleh, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 644 [CA]
Penal Code - Section 302 - Murder - Prima facie case - Whether established - Witnesses' testimony that deceased had been attacked by appellants with parang - Whether appellants were properly and positively identified - Witnesses' failure to state in oral evidence that one appellant wore helmet - Whether failure of witnesses to give exact details a ground for rejecting entire evidence - Identification parade - Failure of prosecution to call police witnesses during identification parade - Whether fatal - Whether appellants properly identified as perpetrators of crime
(Azahar Mohamed, Balia Yusof Wahi, Mohd Zawawi Salleh JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 670 [CA]
Appeal - Conviction and sentence - Murder - Prima facie case - Whether established - Witnesses' testimony that deceased had been attacked by appellants with parang - Whether appellants were properly and positively identified - Witnesses' failure to state in oral evidence that one appellant wore helmet - Whether failure of witnesses to give exact details a ground for rejecting entire evidence - Identification parade - Failure of prosecution to call police witnesses during identification parade - Whether fatal - Whether appellants properly identified as perpetrators of the crime
Forfeiture - Dangerous drugs - Seizure of property - Application under s. 32 Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 - Whether appellants lawfully entitled to properties - Whether presumption of illegal property under s. 35 rebutted - Whether presumption applicable to proceedings under s. 32 - Whether properties obtained through legitimate sources of income - PP v. Lim Kim Hoei & Anor
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Azahar Mohamed, Abdul Aziz Abdul Rahim, Abang Iskandar, Umi Kalthum Abdul Majid JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 605 [CA]
Identification parade - Conduct of - Identification of accused persons - Whether properly and positively identified - Failure of prosecution to call police witnesses during identification parade - Whether fatal - Whether there was sufficient evidence on identification of accused persons - Whether accused persons properly identified as perpetrators of crime
Witness - Identification of accused persons - Whether properly and positively identified - Witnesses' failure to state in oral evidence that one appellant wore helmet - Whether failure of witnesses to give exact details a ground for rejecting entire evidence - Whether there was sufficient evidence on identification of accused persons - Whether accused persons properly identified as perpetrators of crime
Claims - Lapse of time - Insured person took two life insurance policies before going missing and named wife as nominee - Wife claimed under policies from insurance company - Requirement set by insurance company that wife must produce court order to confirm husband was missing and statutorily presumed dead - High Court order pronouncing husband was missing and presumed dead obtained by wife - Insurance company refused claim stating policies had lapsed - Whether wife notified of lapse - Whether wife entitled to claim under policies
(Zakaria Sam J) [2015] 2 CLJ 681 [HC]
Defamation - Libel - Action by statutory government body and/or public authority - Whether plaintiffs local authorities - Whether s. 15(1) of Land Development Act 1956 provided plaintiffs right to sue and be sued - Rationale for allowing statutory authority to be able to sue for libel - Whether to protect damage to reputation
Malicious prosecution - Element of action - Plaintiff charged under s. 216 Penal Code - Whether defendants acted with reasonable and probable cause in instituting charges against plaintiff - Delay in conducting investigation - Whether raised serious question on availability of sufficient evidence - Motive - Whether element of malice proved - Whether there was intention to punish, defame and embarrass plaintiff - Whether Government of Malaysia vicariously liable
"Proceedings under this Act" - Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988, s. 2 - Whether presumption of illegal property under s. 35 applied to proceedings under s. 32
CLJ 2015 Volume 2 (Part 6)
(Constitutional Law; Civil Procedure - Interpretation - Section 298A of Penal Code - Whether a subject matter of religion or public order - Judicial precedent - Stare decisis) [2015] 2 CLJ 745 [CA]
Tuan Mat Tuan Ismail v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd
(Land Law - Charge - Validity of - Third party charge - Chargee a takaful entity - Whether financial institution - Whether fell under exemption to restriction in interest) [2015] 2 CLJ 758 [CA]
Zulkiply Taib & Anor v. Prabakar Bala Krishna & Ors And Other Appeals
(Tort; Damages - Police officers assaulted arrested person during course of interrogation - Misfeasance in public office - Vicarious liability - Compensation and damages) [2015] 2 CLJ 766 [CA]
(Civil Procedure; Tort - Striking out parts of defence - Whether defence frivolous and abuse of court process) [2015] 2 CLJ 791 [HC]
Debaroti Das Gupta v. Deb Brata Das Gupta
(Succession; Probate And Administration - Administration of estates - Appointment of additional administrator - Whether a probate action) [2015] 2 CLJ 798 [HC]
Ng Bak Soon & Ors v. Ji Seng Hong Plastic Manufacturing Sdn Bhd; Mustapha Mohamed (Receiver & Manager And Applicant)
(Company Law - Receivership - Application by receiver and manager to intervene in winding-up proceeding - Whether intended to interfere with winding-up order) [2015] 2 CLJ 828 [HC]
Sandanatavan Marimuthu & Anor v. Badan Pengurusan Bersama - PV3; TSS Security Services Sdn Bhd (Third Party)
(Tort; Land Law - Negligence - Duty of care - Whether Joint Management Body had duty to manage and maintain individual units) [2015] 2 CLJ 844 [HC]
(Administrative Law; Labour Law - Judicial review - Certiorari - Whether punishment of dismissal appropriate - Whether other avenues of punishment open to company) [2015] 2 CLJ 859 [HC]
Judicial review - Certiorari - Application to quash Industrial Court award - Whether employee in breach of fiduciary duties by misusing company's funds - Whether employee misappropriated company's trading stock for unauthorised purpose - Whether punishment of dismissal appropriate - Whether award of scaling back of 50% of backwages excessive - Whether High Court should interfere with findings of Industrial Court
(Lee Swee Seng J) [2015] 2 CLJ 859 [HC]
Judicial precedent - Stare decisis - Supreme Court decision in Mamat Daud & Ors v. The Government of Malaysia - Whether majority judgment created binding precedent - Whether dissenting judgment could be accepted as correct state of law over majority judgment
(Mohtarudin Baki, Rohana Yusuf, Tengku Maimun JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 745 [CA]
Pleadings - Striking out parts of defence - Application for - Action for defamation - Defence of justification and qualified privilege raised by defence - Allegation that defence frivolous and abuse of court process - Whether formed part of or arose from specific charges conveyed by words complained of as pleaded - Whether impugned articles published in paper had connection with issues raised in defence - Whether defendant's reliance on specific paragraph in defence relevant - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19(1)(a), (d)
(S Nantha Balan JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 791 [HC]
Receivership - Sale of company's assets by receiver and manager - Whether bona fide - Whether validation order should be granted - Companies Act 1965, s. 223
(Che Mohd Ruzima Ghazali JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 828 [HC]
Receivership - Winding up, effect of - Application by receiver and manager to intervene in winding-up proceeding - Whether winding-up order granted before appointment of receiver and manager - Whether application intended to interfere with winding-up order - Whether receiver and manager should be allowed to intervene in winding-up proceeding
Interpretation - Pith and substance test - Section 298A of Penal Code - Whether a subject matter of religion or public order - Majority in Supreme Court case of Mamat Daud & Ors v. The Government of Malaysia that s. 298A a law on religion - Whether created binding precedent
Compensation and damages - Tort - Police officers assaulted arrested person during course of interrogation - Arrested person sustained bodily and psychological injuries - Conviction for offence of voluntarily causing hurt to arrested person to extort confession - Penal Code, ss. 34 & 300 - Arrested person awarded with general, aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages - Whether exemplary damages can be awarded when police officers had been convicted and sentenced by criminal court
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Abdul Aziz Rahim, Mohd Zawawi Salleh JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 766 [CA]
Employment - Termination of employment - Whether branch manager in breach of fiduciary duties by misusing company's funds - Whether branch manager in breach of company's rules and policies - Whether element of dishonesty existed - Whether company reasonable in dismissing branch manager - Whether other avenues of punishment open to company - Branch manager's employment record with company - Whether dismissal with just cause and excuse - Industrial Relations Act 1967, ss. 20(3) & 30(5)
Charge - Creation of - Third party charge - Restriction in interest on document of title - Whether condition for exemption to restriction satisfied - Whether charge valid and enforceable
(Zaharah Ibrahim, Anantham Kasinather, Mah Weng Kwai JJCA) [2015] 2 CLJ 758 [CA]
Charge - Validity of - Restriction in interest on document of title - Chargee a takaful entity - Whether chargee a financial institution - Whether chargee fell under exemption to restriction - Kelantan Malay Reservations Enactment 1930, Schedule D - Kelantan Land Enactment 1938, Schedule 26A
Management property - Common property - Joint Management Body ('JMB') - Plaintiffs' unit in condominium broken into - Whether defendant as JMB had duty to manage and maintain individual units - Whether defendant duty bound only to maintain common property - Whether defendant owed any duty to plaintiffs in relation to security of their unit - Whether there was breach of statutory duty - Whether defendant liable for losses sustained in plaintiffs' own unit - Whether JMB a public authority - Whether Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 excludes private law remedy - Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, ss. 2, 4, 8
(Lau Bee Lan J) [2015] 2 CLJ 844 [HC]
Administration of estates - Appointment of additional administrator - Proceedings - Preliminary objection - Commencement of action - Whether plaintiff's action a probate action - Whether plaintiff followed proper procedure under O. 72 r. 2 Rules of Court 2012 - Whether there was due and proper administration of estate - Whether there was sufficient cause to appoint additional administrator - Whether court dismissed plaintiff's case in limine - Probate and Administration Act 1959, ss. 2, 34
(Kamaludin Md Said JC) [2015] 2 CLJ 798 [HC]
Assault - Assault by public servant in course of employment - Police officers assaulted arrested person during course of interrogation - Arrested person sustained bodily and psychological injuries - Conviction for offence of voluntarily causing hurt to arrested person to extort confession - Penal Code, ss. 34 & 300 - Whether superior police officer committed tort of misfeasance in public office in failing to supervise subordinates - Whether government as employer of police officers vicariously liable
Defamation - Action for defamation - Pleadings - Striking out parts of defence - Application for - Defence of justification and qualified privilege raised by defence - Allegation that defence frivolous and abuse of court process - Whether formed part of or arose from specific charges conveyed by words complained of as pleaded - Whether impugned articles published in paper had connection with issues raised in defence - Whether defendant's reliance on specific paragraph in defence relevant - Rules of Court 2012, O. 18 r. 19 (1)(a), (d)
Misfeasance in public office - Police force - Police officers assaulted arrested person during course of interrogation - Arrested person sustained bodily and psychological injuries - Whether police superior committed tort of misfeasance in public office in failing to supervise acts of subordinates
Negligence - Duty of care - Plaintiffs' unit in condominium broken into - Whether defendant as Joint Management Body ('JMB') had duty to manage and maintain individual units - Whether defendant duty bound only to maintain common property - Whether defendant owed any duty to plaintiffs in relation to security of their unit - Whether there was breach of statutory duty - Whether defendant liable for losses sustained in plaintiffs' own unit - Whether JMB a public authority - Whether Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 excludes private law remedy - Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, ss. 2, 4, 8
Vicarious liability - Liability of government - Acts of police officers - Police officers convicted for offence under ss. 34 & 300 of Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to arrested person to extort confession - Whether government as employer of police officers vicariously liable for acts of police officers
1. JUSTICE FOR ALL:
THE NEED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION OF VULNERABLE ACCUSED
IN MALAYSIAN CRIMINAL TRIALS A PROPOSAL FOR REFORM [Read excerpt]
by: NAZIAH BINTI MOHD ALIAS* [2015] 1 LNS(A) xxv
SOLICITORS AS EXECUTORS BENEFITTING SUBSTANTIALLY FROM A WILL [Read excerpt]
by: ROB REIS* [2015] 1 LNS(A) xxvi
PU(A) 43/2015 Customs Duties (Goods Of Asean Countries Origin) (Asean Harmonised Tariff Nomenclature And Asean Trade In Goods Agreement) (Amendment) Order 2015 9 March 2015 10 March 2015 PU(A) 277/2012
PU(B) 92/2015 Appointment Of Assistant Directors Of Industrial Relations 12 March 2015 Specified in column (2) of the Schedule ACT 177
PU(B) 91/2015 Appointment Of Principal Assistant Director Of Industrial Relations 12 March 2015 27 June 2014 ACT 177
PU(B) 90/2015 Notice To Third Parties 12 March 2015 30 March 2015 ACT 613
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xxv
JUSTICE FOR ALL: THE NEED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION OF VULNERABLE ACCUSED IN MALAYSIAN CRIMINAL TRIALS A PROPOSAL FOR REFORM
NAZIAH BINTI MOHD ALIAS*
A proper definition of who is considered to be a vulnerable accused in court is crucial for only when the term "vulnerable person" is defined, does the necessity of providing appropriate assistance become apparent and relevant. Unfortunately, very little terminology exists in the Malaysian criminal justice system in this regard. The law lacks ways to deal with accused who suffer from disabilities other than unsoundness of mind. Thus, this could be one reason vulnerable accused do not receive proper treatment when dealing with the criminal justice system in this country.
Hence, as an attempt to rectify the situation, this paper discusses the definition of a vulnerable person in other Commonwealth jurisdictions. It also discusses whether a vulnerable accused is fit to stand trial or not. Then, it explains the Malaysian approach to determining an accused's fitness to stand trial. Later, this paper proposes to amend the Malaysian Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to "the Code") to provide proper definition of who is a vulnerable person for the purposes of the Code. It recommends following the New South Wales Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to achieve this aim.
A.	Who is a Vulnerable Person
The definition of a vulnerable person varies in each jurisdiction. It is worth comparing the overseas terminology on vulnerable persons to consider examples for Malaysia. The Criminal Procedure Act 1986 in New South Wales defines "vulnerable person" as including a cognitively impaired person, which includes the categories of persons with an intellectual disability, a developmental disorder (including an autistic spectrum disorder), a neurological disorder, dementia, a severe mental illness, or a brain injury.[1] However, the law in England and Wales gives a narrow definition of a vulnerable person as someone who suffers from intellectual impairment.[2]
* Legal Officer of the Federal Court of Malaysia.
[2015] 1 LNS(A) xxvi
SOLICITORS AS EXECUTORS BENEFITTING SUBSTANTIALLY FROM A WILL
Of late the Professional Standards Office has received a number of enquiries from members of the profession querying the ethical position of a solicitor appointed as executor to a client's will which gives a substantial benefit to the solicitor.
In one instance a member is considering "revoking" the estate which has been left to her by a very grateful client notwithstanding the client had the will prepared independently with utterly no involvement of the member. It appears the member was shown a copy of the will duly signed by the client.
So it is opportune to consider how members might conduct themselves if faced with the same circumstances. The recent cases of Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales v. Reymond [2014] NSWCATOD 14 ('the Reymond case') and Legal Services Commissioner v. Bone [2-13] QCAT 550 ('the Bone case') provide some guidance. Both cases were reported in the Ethics Centre on the website of the Queensland Law Society by Nick Knowlman and Dan Phelan respectively.
The Reymond case
This case involved a solicitor who was given a substantial benefit in the will of a client who appointed the solicitor as executor. The solicitor prepared the will.
* Professional Standards Manager, ACT Law Society.