Ang Boon Kong Lawrence v The Law Society of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 December 1990
• Date: 28 December 1990
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1136 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ang Boon Kong Lawrence

Plaintiff

and

Law Society of Singapore

Defendant

[1990] SGHC 116

T S Sinnathuray J

Originating Summons No 1136 of 1989

High Court

Legal Profession–Disciplinary procedures–Inquiry Committee–Whether Law Society has jurisdiction over deputy public prosecutor in respect of his conduct in his professional capacity–Whether findings of Inquiry Committee supported by evidence–Sections 28 (2), 82 (1), 85 (1) and 92 (3) Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)

This was an application to set aside an order made by the Council of the Law Society directing the applicant to pay a penalty of $1,000 under s 85 (1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), following its determination of a report of the Inquiry Committee constituted to inquire into a complaint made by an advocate and solicitor. The complainant alleged that the applicant, in his capacity as deputy public prosecutor, used certain words which the complainant considered unwarranted, baseless and dishonourable. The applicant argued that the penalty imposed was clearly wrong in law and the Law Society and the Inquiry Committee had wrongly assumed jurisdiction over him. Secondly, even if they had jurisdiction, the findings of the Inquiry Committee, and confirmed by the Council were perverse. The executive secretary of the Law Society filed an affidavit exhibiting the report of the Inquiry Committee and the grounds of the Council of the Law Society for assuming jurisdiction. The Law Society further argued that there could be jurisdiction assumed by the Council in relation to proceedings under Part VII of the Act in respect of an advocate and solicitor who was not in possession of a practising certificate.

Held, allowing the application and setting aside the order:

(1) The Law Society, the Council and the Inquiry Committee had wrongly assumed jurisdiction. Having regard to s 28 (2), the declaratory provision in the Act, the applicant specifically had a right of audience in the courts and when he was acting in his capacity as deputy public prosecutor, cannot come within s 80, the present s 82 (2) of the Act, in respect of his conduct in his professional capacity. The complaint related to the conduct of the applicant in his capacity as deputy public prosecutor and that did not come within the jurisdiction of the Law Society, or of the Council or of the Inquiry Committee to look into. They did not have the power to do so: at [7] to [9].

(2) On...