Carolyn Tan Beng Hui v The Law Society of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 25 January 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 23
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 05 March 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Carolyn Tan Beng Hui and Koh Sian Ann [Tan-Au Associates]
• Defendant Counsel: Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck,R Palakrishnan [Palakrishnan & Partners] and Michael Moey Chin Woon [Moey & Yuen]
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 23

Judgment :

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an application by the applicant, an advocate and solicitor, under Order 53 rule 1 of the Rules of Court seeking leave to apply for orders of certiorari and prohibition, as well as various declarations against the Law

Society of Singapore. The relief sought was essentially to set aside the recommendation by the Inquiry Committee of the Law Society that a certain complaint against the applicant be referred to the Disciplinary Committee for investigation. The facts leading to the complaint were not in dispute. The applicant was instructed by one of her clients to sue a company called Fertichem Trading Pte Ltd ("Fertichem") over an unpaid debt. Pursuant to instructions, the applicant served a statutory demand for US$550,171.08 on Fertichem. However, the applicant also copied the demand to Fertichem’s bankers and accountants. This resulted in the complaint by Fertichem to the Law Society. The written complaint dated 2 October 1997 stated at paragraph 7 that "[b]y copying the statutory letter of demand to my bankers and accountants, my company has been adversely affected in their dealings and business relationships with the bankers and accountants". Fertichem also counter-claimed against the applicant’s clients for damages arising from the alleged libelous publication of the statutory demand to their bankers and accountants.

2. It is first necessary to understand the process in which disciplinary proceedings are regulated under the Legal Profession Act, Cap 161 because that process is an integral part of the context in which this application before me must be considered. That process is unique and has no equivalent model outside the legal profession. It is, however, not necessary to deal with the detailed provisions under the Act. Briefly, there are three stages in which a lawyer, such as the applicant, may be required to appear. In the first instance, any complaint to the Law Society touching on the conduct of an advocate and solicitor must be referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel who will appoint an Inquiry Committee to consider the complaint. Under s86 of the Act the Inquiry Committee may not require the advocate and solicitor to offer an explanation (if the complaint is patently groundless), or if it thinks fit, invite the advocate and solicitor to give a written explanation, and if necessary, give the advocate and solicitor concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Thereafter, the Inquiry Committee will submit its report to the Council of the Law Society. In this report, it may advise that the complaint be dismissed, or a sufficient penalty be imposed on the advocate and solicitor, or that a formal investigation may be required.

3. When the Council of the Law Society has received the Inquiry Committee’s report, it may do any of the following. First, it may decide that a formal investigation is not necessary. Secondly, it may decide that although a formal investigation is not necessary, some penalty ought to be imposed on the advocate and solicitor. Thirdly, it may decide to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Committee for a formal investigation. Finally, it may decide to refer the matter back to the Inquiry Committee for its reconsideration or a further report. This provision is important and I shall revert to it shortly.

4. The second stage in which an advocate and solicitor may be required to appear is the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee. At this stage, a charge have been drawn up against the advocate and solicitor, and the Law Society will present its case and evidence before the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee must determine whether there is cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action. If there is, the matter may enter the third stage if the Law Society thinks that the matter to be sufficiently grave and applies to the Court requiring the advocate and solicitor to show cause before a court of three judges.

5. I will now revert to the facts in the application before me. On 13 February 1998 the Inquiry Committee of the Law Society wrote to the applicant and referred to Fertichem’s complaint. The applicant was invited to submit a written explanation. The applicant wrote a brief explanation dated 4 March 1998 stating that the act complained of was carried out under the instructions of her clients. The applicant declined to attend a meeting of the Inquiry Committee scheduled on 30 March 1998 explaining that her letter of 4 March had adequately covered all that she needed to say. On 22 July 1998 the Law Society informed the applicant by letter that there will be a formal investigation by the Disciplinary Committee. On 4 August 1998 the applicant wrote to the Law Society expressing her unhappiness concerning the impending disciplinary hearing. She asked the Law Society for...