The Malaysian Bar's bid to overturn a High Court ruling that its 59th annual general meeting four months ago (AGM) was invalid failed today when the Appeals Court said the lower court was right.

Unanimously, Justices Dennis Ong, Abdul Aziz Mohamed and James Foong dismissed the Bar's arguments, saying the Kuala Lumpur High Court was correct in declaring the March 19 meeting 'unlawful'.

The High Court had held that the absence of a quorum as required by organisation's rules had made the meeting invalid.

The judges allowed an interim stay of the order pending the filing of a formal stay of application next Monday as requested by the Bar's lawyer Sulaiman Abdullah. He also informed the court that the matter would now be escalated to the Federal Court.

Zainur Zakaria, acting for respondent Edward Louise Van Buerle ( photo, right ), objected to the interim stay. The stay allows current office bearers to continue acting as caretakers of the 12,000-member body until the disposal of the stay application.

If the stay application is dismissed, the Bar will then have to hold its 59th AGM again within 30 days with the quorum met.

Lawyer apologises

When informed that the matter would be appealed to the Federal Court, Justice Foong expressed surprise noting that Sulaiman would not be reviewing today's decision's written judgements which would be available next week.

"You might as well appeal straight to the Federal Court. You have not look at our judgments yet," he said.

Sulaiman quickly apologised, stating that there was no intention to show disrespect to the judges or their ruling and that the decision to appeal was taken by the Bar Council '... due to the importance of the issue'.

"This would be the first time that the Federal Court would discuss the issue based on the Legal Profession Act 1976," he said.

Outside the court, Van Buerle told reporters that the next level of appeal may burn a hole in his pocket and that he intends to seek costs.

"The procedure is not cheap for me, you know. I have to bear the expenses. I would certainly press for costs at the higher court," he said.

He believed that the Bar's decision to appeal may not be well received by its members as it would only serve to prolong the problem.

"I understand that the Council has the right to appeal. But it is not in the interest of members to do so. The best way is to just hold the AGM again without running afoul of the law and at the same time pursue the appeal," he added.

'Not personal decision'

Council president Yeoh Yang Poh, however, said the Bar would ensure that the appeal process would be as swift as possible and that the decision to do so had been deliberated during a meeting on July 2.

"It is not my personal decision. The council had discussed the next course of action to be taken in the event the court ruled against us and all council members unanimously decided that there must be an appeal to the Federal Court," he said.

On April 27, High Court judge Raus Sharif allowed Van Buerle's application saying that the AGM was '... null and void and all decisions taken nugatory and invalid'.

He added that he was unable to subscribe to the Bar's contention that the quorum requirement was applicable only to general meetings but not to the AGM.

"I am of the view that the term general meeting of the Malaysian Bar refers to both annual general meeting under Section 64 and the general meeting under section 65. The fact that the meeting is termed as annual general meeting does not make it any less a general meeting," Raud had said.