The legal battle over the forged ballot papers case in the Bar Council elections for 2007/2008 held last December ended today after the Kuala Lumpur High Court decided to strike it out.

Judge KP Gengadharan granted the application filed by second defendant and election scrutineer Yaacob Hussain Merican to throw out the main suit filed by lawyer Foo Ton Hin.

"Based on the fact of circumstances, submissions and authorities cited by all the lawyers including the Bar Council, I held that the plaintiff had no locus standi (legal standing) to institute and maintain the proceedings on this case," he said.

Gengadharan reiterated that the application filed by Foo - which contained the originating summons and reliefs sought from the court - should be sought by proper parties.

Foo, of TH Foo and Associates, was one of the 3,370 voters who voted to elect 12 council members for the Bar Council's new term. However, the scrutineers discovered forged ballot papers, leading to police reports being lodged and the elections being declared null and void by them.

Foo is seeking a declaration that they had acted beyond the scope of the Legal Profession Act when they declared the elections void on Dec 1. He wants the court to instruct the scrutineer to verify the authenticity of the ballots cast by matching each against its counterfoil and excluding any that is not authentic.

Thereafter, he wants the defendants to declare the names of the persons elected according to Section 50 (5) of the LPA within seven days of the court order. In the alternative, Foo wants the court to order three partners of an international accounting firm or other persons to be appointed as scrutineer at the expense of the Bar Council.

The council should then take all necessary steps to complete the elections and announce the names of those elected.

A 'hurried action'

Gengadharan said if there is any relief to be sought, parties eligible to seek them would be the Bar Council or the election candidates affected by the decision of the scrutineer.

He asserted that Foo should have waited for the Bar Council to decide on the next course of action and or to resolve the matter after receiving the scrutineer's report.

Gengadharan described Foo's move in filing the case against the Bar Council and scrutineer Inderjit Singh, Yaacob and S Radhakrishnan as a 'hurried action'.

He said that Foo should have given more time for the Bar Council to resolve the matter through conciliations and mediation, which is actively advocated by the Bar Council.

"Perhaps the plaintiff (Foo) was in a hurry to file the case that he had forgotten that such disputes should have been resolved within the Bar Council," Gengadharan said.

Approached for comments outside the court later, Bar Council vice-president Ambiga Sreenevasan said an emergency meeting will be held tomorrow at 3pm.

"The Bar Council will decide on the next course of action and consider all possibilities," she said.