Case Details
- Citation: [2002] SGCA 24
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2002-05-07
- Judges: Chao Hick Tin JA; Tan Lee Meng J; Yong Pung How CJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wee Soon Kim Anthony
- Defendant/Respondent: The Law Society of Singapore (No 4)
- Legal Areas: Legal Profession – Disciplinary procedures; Professional conduct – Breach
- Statutes Referenced: Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed) ss 85(6D), 86(5), 86(6) & 86(7)
- Cases Cited: Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore [1988] 3 MLJ 9; Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1998] 1 SLR 97; Re an Advocate and Solicitor [1962] MLJ 125; Re James Gray Exp. The Incorporated Law Society [1869] 20 LT 730; Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore [1995] 2 SLR 323; Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng [2001] 3 SLR 544; Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [2001] 4 SLR 25; Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore [1994] 2 SLR 476
- Judgment Length: 9 pages, 4,797 words
Summary
This case concerns a complaint made by Wee Soon Kim Anthony against two solicitors, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar, for preparing an affidavit that contained a false statement. The Inquiry Committee (IC) appointed to investigate the complaint ultimately recommended that the complaint be dismissed, finding that the solicitors did not know the statement was false and were not under a duty to verify the client's instructions. Wee appealed against the IC's decision, seeking to have the complaint referred to a Disciplinary Committee (DC). The Court of Appeal dismissed Wee's appeal, holding that the IC had acted properly within its role and discretion in investigating the complaint.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The facts of this case stem from a dispute between Wee Soon Kim Anthony and his family, and the bank UBS (AG) (UBS). Wee and his family were customers of UBS, but disputes arose between them, leading UBS to close the three accounts they held with the bank. UBS then commenced legal proceedings (OS 546/99) seeking directions on the disposal of certain assets held in relation to the three accounts, as Wee refused to provide any instructions.
The two solicitors, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar, acted for UBS in the OS 546/99 proceedings. In an affidavit filed by a UBS officer, Shirreen Sin, the following sentence appeared: "The account opening forms for all the three accounts were prepared by (UBS) in Singapore and executed by (Mr Wee and his wife and son) in Singapore." Wee alleged that this statement was false, as the opening forms for one of the accounts (No. 207038) were actually prepared and witnessed by a UBS officer in Hong Kong, where Wee claimed to have been at the relevant time.
Wee thus complained to the Law Society that the two solicitors had either knowingly prepared an affidavit containing a false statement, or had otherwise permitted Shirreen to perjure herself.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the Inquiry Committee (IC) should have referred the complaint to a Disciplinary Committee (DC) for further investigation, or whether it was entitled to make a finding that the complaint should be dismissed.
- Whether the solicitors, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar, had committed professional misconduct by preparing an affidavit containing a false statement, or by allowing their client's representative to make a false statement.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the Court of Appeal examined the role and powers of the IC under the Legal Profession Act. The court noted that the IC's task was to determine whether a prima facie case of misconduct had been made out against the solicitors. In doing so, the IC was not required to resolve disputed issues of fact, especially where the complaint was not serious and did not warrant referral to a DC.
The court held that the IC had acted properly within its discretion. It had examined the relevant case law on the duties of solicitors in relation to their clients' instructions, and concluded that the solicitors were not under a duty to verify the truthfulness of every statement made by their client's representative. The IC had also heard from the relevant UBS officer, Shirreen Sin, and found her evidence to be credible and convincing.
On the second issue, the court agreed with the IC's analysis of the solicitors' professional duties. It held that the solicitors were not obligated to disbelieve their client's representative unless the representative's statements were "inherently incredible" or "logically impossible". As the IC had found Shirreen Sin's account to be credible, the court concluded that the solicitors had not committed professional misconduct.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court of Appeal dismissed Wee's appeal, upholding the IC's recommendation to dismiss the complaint against the two solicitors. The court found that the IC had acted properly within its role and discretion, and that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case of professional misconduct against the solicitors.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the role and powers of an Inquiry Committee (IC) in the disciplinary process for legal professionals in Singapore. It clarifies that the IC is not required to resolve disputed issues of fact, especially where the complaint is not serious enough to warrant referral to a Disciplinary Committee (DC).
The case also reinforces the principle that solicitors are not under a general duty to verify the truthfulness of every statement made by their clients or the clients' representatives. Solicitors are only required to question such statements if they are "inherently incredible" or "logically impossible".
This decision helps to strike a balance between the need to maintain high standards of professional conduct among lawyers, and the practical realities of legal practice. It provides guidance to both legal practitioners and disciplinary bodies on the appropriate scope of a solicitor's duties when dealing with client instructions and information.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore [1988] 3 MLJ 9
- Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1998] 1 SLR 97
- Re an Advocate and Solicitor [1962] MLJ 125
- Re James Gray Exp. The Incorporated Law Society [1869] 20 LT 730
- Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore [1995] 2 SLR 323
- Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng [2001] 3 SLR 544
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore [2001] 4 SLR 25
- Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore [1994] 2 SLR 476
Source Documents
This article analyses [2002] SGCA 24 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.