Clients engage and rely on the expertise of trained professionals to minimise potential risks and to ensure that they get the best results possible. Clients will always expect those hired to perform their duties in line with the highest professional standards. However, this is not always the case and clients may find themselves a victim to grave impropriety. In such cases, clients may seek disciplinary action against the professional in addition to claiming for compensation for losses suffered. Most professions have established their own independent disciplinary board and we are able to advise clients on the different procedures involved and the limited disciplinary sanctions available.
 | |
| Raymond Mah Managing Partner | Gan Chong Chieh Partner |
| Christine Toh Partner | Anis Mohd Sohaimi Associate |
| Wong Chee En Associate | |
Related Articles and Updates
Issue: Mdm Y*, 55, a small-time business owner, was first admitted into a private hospital…
Effective administration of construction contracts is critical for a productive business relationship between the parties…
Thursday, 7 July 2022 3:00 pm – 4:00 pm “Serious Professional Misconduct” in MMC Disciplinary…
At the time of writing, the countries that top the chart with the highest number…
Employment Law: Medical Boarding Out or Not? Every employee of an employment contract will inadvertently…
Prior to 29/12/06 the test for medical negligence accepted by the Courts in Malaysia was generally known as the Bolam Test or the Bolam Principle. This test was applied to determine the doctor’s standard of care in relation to the treatment and information given to the patient. However, the Federal Court on 29/12/06 in its judgment in the case of Foo Fio Na v Dr. Soo Fook Mun & Anor [2007] 1 MLJ 593 declared inter alia, that the Bolam Test is no longer applicable. The question of law which was posed for the determination of the Federal Court was whether the Bolam Test in the area of medical negligence should apply in relation to all aspects of medical negligence. The Federal Court answered the question in the negative.
