A senior lawyer today filed a motion at the Kuala Lumpur High Court seeking, among others, a declaration that the 59th annual general assembly (AGM) of the Malaysian Bar - held without a quorum two weeks ago - is null and void.

Penang-based lawyer Edward Van Buerle filed the originating summons through another lawyer from Messr Cheong Wai Meng and Van Buerle at the court's appellate and special powers division this morning.

In the summons which named the Bar Council as defendant, Van Buerle - who has been practising since 1973 - also sought to nullify all decisions and resolutions passed by the 1,152 lawyers who attended the meeting on March 19.

The court was asked to declare that the council's election of the principal office bearers "null and void".

In the event the court allows the motion, he asked the court to direct the former and current office bearers of the council to convene the 2005 AGM within 30 days from the date of judgment.

He also asked that no order is made as to costs, other than that deemed fit by the court.

Van Buerle, 55, was one of a group of senior lawyers who had walked out of the AGM to register protest against the Council's decision to proceed with the meeting although the one-fifth quorum requirement was not fulfilled.

The attendance of at least 2,340 lawyers - from a total of 11,700 from Peninsular Malaysia - is required to fulfil the quorum quota.

'Stronger Bar'

Newly elected president Yeoh Yang Poh told malaysiakini that the summons would not affect the functions of the council.

"Business will go on as usual. This is nothing unusual...if a dispute arises, any member is entitled to take it to court. We would then present our case and let the court decide," he said when contacted.

He said the council will defend its stand that the one-fifth quorum quota is not required to hold an AGM.

Yeoh also disagreed with the view that the court action would create disunity among lawyers.

"One thing I am very sure of is that, no matter what the court's decision and whatever the outcome, the Bar will emerge stronger from this episode," he said.

In his nine-page affidavit, Van Buerle stated that his interpretation of section 67(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 (LPA) revealed that the quorum must be attained before the AGM can be conducted.

"In view that it (the 59th AGM on March 19, 2005 was held without quorum, it is argued that the meeting was illegal and should be nullified together with the decisions and resolutions reached in the meeting."

He said that the view that quorum is not required for the Bar's AGM, is inconsistent with the rule of natural justice, fairness and an open society.

"I am concerned that the council could have acted on the wrong interpretations of the provisions of the LPA. Since the council intends to be guided by that interpretation for future AGMs, it would be in the interests of the Bar and this court to give its definitive opinion on the interpretation of sections 64-67, so that the council could be guided accordingly."

Van Buerle also observed that the decision was an about-turn of the stand adopted by the council for the past 27 years, where it had been the practice to require a quorum before the meeting commenced.

"Over the years, the council had always reminded lawyers of their obligation to attend our annual general meeting so that we could attain our quorum to avoid unnecessary costs from being incurred in having to hold another meeting.

"Having gone through the record of the Malaysian Bar's previous AGM I note the following: The Bar Council had maintained in all previous years that a quorum is required for our AGM; the council affirmed that the quorum requirement after the Act was amended in 1992."

He said that even last year's initial AGM had to be postponed by the president when the meeting fell short of the quorum.

"It is pertinent to note that the president of the Bar Council for last year's AGM and the 2004/05 AGM is the same person, but he seemed to have two opinions on the same issue."

Circular sent

Van Buerle also related the sequence of events during the closed-door meeting which started at 10am when the president announced the council's view that the quorum was not required and that the meeting would proceed although the quorum was not attained.

Those who were present were told that since the last AGM, the council had sought legal opinions from four of the council's solicitors - two of whom were of the opinion that a quorum was not required for an AGM of the Malaysian Bar.

"The president said (in the meeting) the council's decision was circulated to members sometime in May 2004 and no one took any objection or indicated that they opposed the decision made by the council until now," said Van Buerle, who noted that some lawyers had complained they did not receive the circular.

Despite reservations being recorded, protest and calls for adjournment from senior lawyers - including former presidents and the current council members - the meeting proceeded.

After the meeting, Van Buerle said he asked for a copy of the circular mentioned in the meeting and was informed that it was merely circulated to the state Bars.

"It is to be noted that the circular was sent to the state Bars and to the best of my knowledge, I did not receive any circular from the Penang State Bar on this issue. The council regularly circulated various circulars to all members. Some of these circulars concern social events and charities.

"However, on such an important issued that concerns the Bar, it was not sent to all members by the council nor was the matter given any prominence or discussed at open forum where members could express their view (as to) whether a quorum was required for our AGM."