[2020] 1 SLR 395
| Year | 2020 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
13 cases
- Malaysian Motor Insurance Pool (administered by MMIP Services Sdn Bhd) v Murali a/l Sandrakasan and Another
-
Law Society of Singapore v Hanam, Andrew John
...1 SLR 83 (refd) Mohammad Farid bin Batra v PP [2020] 1 SLR 907 (refd) Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395 (refd) Facts Mr Andrew John Hanam (“Mr Hanam”), the respondent, was a solicitor of 18 years' standing at the material time. He represented P&P ......
-
[2023] 4 SLR 1280
...1 SLR 83 (refd) Mohammad Farid bin Batra v PP [2020] 1 SLR 907 (refd) Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395 (refd) Facts Mr Andrew John Hanam (“Mr Hanam”), the respondent, was a solicitor of 18 years' standing at the material time. He represented P&P ......
-
Law Society of Singapore v Hanam, Andrew John
...in numerous precedents. We illustrate with a few examples. In Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395, the Court of Appeal observed at [175] that under r 17(2)(e)(i), “[l]awyers have a professional obligation to ensure that a proper risk-bene......
Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles
-
Legal Profession
...1151, in which the Court of Appeal repeated the same reminder. 15 See, eg, Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association [2020] 1 SLR 395, discussed in (2019) 20 SAL Ann Rev 587 at 593–595, paras 21.24–21.32; and Jeffrey Pinsler, “Lawyer's Responsibility Not to Pursue a Claim......
-
Comment
LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITY NOT TO PURSUE A CLAIM OR APPLICATION OR APPEAL FAVOURED BY THE CLIENT WHERE THE INTEREST OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WILL BE COMPROMISED
The court system is not a marketplace which entitles a lawyer to pick and choose a product for his client regardless of adverse consequences to the latter and the administration of justice. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that the initiation of claims, applications and appeals must be justified by the potential benefit to be gained in the light of proportionate expenditure and the proper use of the court's resources.
...entitled to refer the matter to the Law Society for disciplinary action pursuant to the breach of a relevant rule of the LP(PC)R 2015. 1 [2019] SGCA 83. 2 See Jeffrey Pinsler SC, “Litigation and the Client's Right to Make an Informed Choice” (2008) 20 SAcLJ 21. 3 Singapore Shooting Associat......
