Case Details
- Citation: [2000] SGHC 159
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2000-08-04
- Judges: Lai Kew Chai J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wee Soon Kim Anthony
- Defendant/Respondent: The Law Society of Singapore
- Legal Areas: No catchword
- Statutes Referenced: Legal Profession Act, Legal Profession Act
- Cases Cited: [1953] MLJ 161, [2000] SGHC 159
- Judgment Length: 7 pages, 4,078 words
Summary
This case involves a complaint filed by lawyer Wee Soon Kim Anthony against two other lawyers, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar, for alleged misconduct in preparing an affidavit that contained false statements. The High Court of Singapore ultimately found that three of Wee's complaints were baseless and frivolous, but accepted that the fourth complaint fell within the scope of the Legal Profession Act and should be referred to the Inquiry Committee. The court ordered Wee to pay costs to the Law Society of Singapore for his unsuccessful attempt to have all four complaints referred.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The facts of this case arose out of a separate set of proceedings in which Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar acted for a bank, UBS AG, against Wee and his family. In Originating Summons 546 of 1999, UBS AG sought the court's directions regarding the return of assets previously held in accounts belonging to Wee and his family.
Wee and his family had a banking relationship with UBS since August 1997, opening joint accounts in Singapore and Hong Kong. Wee also opened a sole account in Hong Kong. The relationship became turbulent, with Wee and his family making allegations of misrepresentation and negligence against UBS and its officers. Eventually, the banking relationship was terminated and the accounts were closed.
In the subsequent Originating Summons 546 of 1999, UBS sought the court's directions on returning the assets to Wee and his family. Wee was unhappy that UBS had joined his family as co-defendants and applied to stay the proceedings in favor of Hong Kong.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was whether Wee's complaint against Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar fell within the scope of section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act, which allows for the referral of a complaint of misconduct against a lawyer to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel.
Wee argued that section 85(1) made it mandatory for the Law Society Council to refer all complaints to the Inquiry Panel Chairman. The Law Society, on the other hand, submitted that the Council had the right and duty to first determine whether a complaint fell within the scope of section 85(1) before referring it.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by noting that Wee's first three complaints against Singh and Kumar were "baseless and frivolous" and did not fall within section 85(1). However, the court agreed with the Law Society's counsel that Wee's fourth complaint, regarding an alleged false statement in the affidavit prepared by Singh and Kumar, did fall within the scope of the Act.
The court accepted the Law Society's submission that it was the Council's role to determine whether a complaint met the requirements of section 85(1), rather than being obligated to refer all complaints to the Inquiry Panel. The court stated that the Council had "the right and the duty to determine if the complaint was one that fell within s 85(1) of the Act."
In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on the principle established in the 1962 case of "Re An Advocate & Solicitor", which held that the preparation of an untrue affidavit by a lawyer is a "very serious offence" as lawyers owe a duty to the court. The court found that this principle should apply equally to lawyers who are also Members of Parliament, as in the case of Davinder Singh SC.
What Was the Outcome?
The court made a declaration that only Wee's fourth complaint, regarding the alleged false statement in the affidavit, should be referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. The court rejected Wee's argument that all four complaints should be referred.
As Wee had lost on his main submission that the Law Society Council was obligated to refer all complaints, the court ordered him to pay the defendant (the Law Society) costs fixed at $2,500.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the role and responsibilities of a law society's council in handling complaints of misconduct against lawyers. It clarifies that the council has the duty to first assess whether a complaint meets the legal requirements for referral to an inquiry panel, rather than being obligated to refer all complaints received.
The case also reinforces the principle that the preparation of a false affidavit by a lawyer is a serious breach of their professional duties, even if the lawyer is also a Member of Parliament. This underscores the high standards of integrity and honesty expected of lawyers in the administration of justice.
For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully scrutinizing the factual basis of any complaints received, and not automatically referring matters that do not appear to have merit. It also highlights the potential consequences, in terms of adverse costs orders, for bringing frivolous or unsubstantiated complaints against fellow lawyers.
Legislation Referenced
- Legal Profession Act, Cap 161
Cases Cited
- [1953] MLJ 161
- [1962] 28 MLJ 125 (Re An Advocate & Solicitor)
- [1869] 20 LT 730 (Re Gray, ex p Inc Law Soc)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2000] SGHC 159 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.