Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 August 2022
• Neutral Citation: [2022] SGHC 185
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1 of 2022
• Published date: 06 August 2022
• Year: 2022
• Hearing Date: 01 July 2022
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Soon Peng Adrian and Wayne Yeo (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: The respondent in person.
• Subject Matter: Legal Profession,Disciplinary proceedings
• Citation: [2022] SGHC 185

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

C3J/OS 1/2022 (“OS 1”) was an application by the Law Society of Singapore for the respondent, Mr Ooi Oon Tat, to be sanctioned under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (“LPA”). Three charges were brought against the respondent (“the Charges”) in relation to his conduct of DC/DC 2679/2015 (“DC 2679”), a personal injury claim filed by Mr Lim See Meng (“complainant”) arising from an accident on 12 November 2012. In essence, the respondent was charged with having failed to (i) keep the complainant reasonably informed of the progress of DC 2679, (ii) act with reasonable diligence, (iii) provide timely advice in relation to DC 2679, and (iv) follow the instructions given by the complainant.

To put it very bluntly, we found this to be a deplorable case of a solicitor who was in grave dereliction of duty to his client. The complainant had obtained an interlocutory judgment against the defendant in DC 2679. This was entered by consent on 25 November 2015 with liability fixed at 100% and damages to be assessed. However, what appeared to be a complete victory in favour of the complainant was transformed into a complete defeat as a result of the respondent’s gross mismanagement of DC 2679. After judgment had been entered, the defendant in DC 2679 sought discovery of certain documents pertaining to the assessment. The complainant duly provided various documents to the respondent. Yet, despite numerous opportunities for the respondent to act on the discovery sought by the defendant and to disclose the documents the complainant had handed to him, the respondent inexplicably failed to do so. He persisted in this failure even after the defendant obtained court orders for the production of those documents. This ultimately resulted in DC 2679 being struck off and by then, it was not possible to recommence a fresh action because it was time-barred.

In The Law Society of Singapore v Ooi Oon Tat [2021] SGDT 13, the disciplinary tribunal (“DT”) held that the Charges against the respondent were made out on the evidence. It described the respondent’s conduct as a “contumelious and repeated failure” to keep his client informed of the state of progress of his suit. It also observed that the respondent’s “inaction and lackadaisical conduct [was] seen over a prolonged period between August 2016 and January 2017, when there were several occasions [where] the Discovery Request, the Discovery Order and finally the Unless Order could have been complied with”. The DT concluded that the respondent’s conduct brought dishonour to the profession and fell below the standards expected of an advocate and solicitor.

Before us, the respondent did not challenge the DT’s findings and conceded that due cause was made out. In our judgment, the respondent’s misconduct reflected a fundamental breach of a solicitor’s basic duty to carry out the representation of his client in a competent way. A solicitor’s breaches of his duties to the court and to his client are among the most serious failings, and in this case, it was a grave breach with real consequences for his client.

Having heard the parties and considered their submissions, we were satisfied that there was due cause for the respondent to be sanctioned and ordered that the respondent be suspended for a term of five years with immediate effect. We gave brief reasons for our decision at the time. In this judgment, we set out our reasons in detail.

Facts

The respondent was admitted to the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore in August 1989. At the material time in 2016, he was a solicitor of some 27 years’ standing.

On 19 March 2016, the complainant engaged M/s Judy Cheng & Co (“J&C”) to act for him in relation to MC/MC 228/2014 (“MC 288”) and DC 2679, which were claims filed by him in relation to two accidents that took place on 9 March 2012 and 12 November 2012 respectively. The complainant knew the then sole proprietor of J&C, Ms Cheng Su Yin Judy (“Ms Cheng”), and gave instructions to her. Shortly thereafter, from April 2016, Ms Cheng decided not to renew her practising certificate. The respondent then became the sole proprietor of J&C and took over the conduct of MC 288 and DC 2679.

DC 2679 had been commenced by the complainant’s former solicitors on 9 September 2015. The complainant obtained interlocutory judgment with liability fixed at 100% against the defendant in DC 2679 on 25 November 2015. The respondent was engaged primarily to see to the assessment of damages stage of DC 2679. On 17 March 2016, the solicitors for the defendant in DC 2679, United Legal Alliance LLC (“ULA”), served a list of requests on the complainant seeking to determine, among other things, whether the complainant had been involved in any other road accidents apart from the accident on 12 November 2012.

On 2 May 2016, the respondent filed a Notice of Change of Solicitor to formally take over the carriage of DC 2679 from the complainant’s former solicitors. On 15 June 2016, ULA made a discovery request by letter for the following documents (“Discovery Request”): Medical report of the complainant issued by Sata Comm Health dated 28 June 2012. Medical report of the complainant issued by Dr Benedict Peng of Island Orthopaedic Consultants Pte Ltd dated 29 August 2012. Medical reports in relation to the complainant’s accident on 29 July 2014. All relevant documents pertaining to any claim(s) and / or legal proceeding(s) commenced by the complainant in relation to the accident on 26 June 2013, if any. All relevant documents pertaining to any claim(s) and / or legal proceeding(s) commenced by the complainant in relation to the accident on 29 July 2014, if any. All relevant documents pertaining to MC Suit No 21307 / 2010 including but not limited to the following: (i) copies of the pleadings; (ii) copies of all affidavit(s) of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”), if any; (iii) copies of the interlocutory judgement and final judgement, if any; and (iv) all other relevant documents. Pertaining to MC 228, (a) copies of the pleadings; (b) copies of all AEIC(s), if any; (c) copies of the interlocutory judgement and final judgement, if any; (d) all other relevant documents in relation to the suit; and the particulars / information relating to the personal injury claim that the complainant intends to consolidate with DC 2679. The complainant’s Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) statements for the period from 1 January 2012 to present. The complainant’s Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”) notice of assessment for the years 2011 to 2016. Documents substantiating the complainant’s claim for loss of future earnings or earning capacity of $15,000.00. Documents substantiating the complainants’ claim for transport expenses of $800.00; and Other documents in support of the complainant’s claim. In the same letter, ULA also requested that the complainant provide a signed clinical abstract form and a copy of his NRIC to allow ULA to write to all hospitals on the complainant’s pre-existing injuries prior to the accident on 12 November 2012.

On the same day, Ms Cheng, who was assisting the respondent with DC 2679, sent the Discovery Request to the complainant by way of email (with the respondent on copy) stating “[w]e will let you know if we cannot find the documents in our file and the documents we need from you”. At the time, the respondent was already in possession of documents that had been handed over by the complainant’s former solicitors, at least some of which would have been relevant to the Discovery Request.

On 27 June 2016, the complainant attended at the respondent’s office and provided the respondent with his CPF statements for the period from January 2012 to May 2016, his IRAS notices of assessments for the financial years from 2010 to 2015 and the signed clinical abstract form, to enable the respondent to reply, at least in part, to the Discovery Request. On 30 June 2016, the complainant followed up with an email to the respondent pertaining to the Discovery Request stating:

Dear Sir/Mdm

1) Kindly refer to the letter from m/s United Legal Alliance dated 15th June 2016. 2) As a reminder, i have delivered the CPF Statements, IR8A and clinical abstract application form which has been signed by me and delivered over to yourself & Mr Ooi Oon Tat dated 27th June 2016. 3) I will appreciate if you could cc me a copy of your reply letter to United Legal Alliance and also cc copy of the affidavit to consolidate DC Suit No. 2679 of 2015 and MC Suit No. 228 of 2014 for my reference.

I hereby appreciate if you can kindly expedite my matters asap.

Thank You.

As the respondent did not respond to the Discovery Request, ULA sent another letter on 17 August 2016 requesting that the same be complied with by 19 August 2016 failing which ULA would file the necessary application. The respondent replied to this email on 19 August 2016 stating that “[w]e are reviewing the matter and will let you have whatever possible documents by the following Monday/Tuesday”. However, the respondent did not provide any of the documents set out in the Discovery Request even by then.

On 29 August 2016, ULA took out DC/SUM 2793/2016 (“SUM 2793”), an application for discovery seeking most of the documents in the Discovery Request. On 4 October 2016, the District Court granted the orders sought in SUM 2793. By DC/ORC 3529/2016, the complainant was ordered to produce, among other things, the documents requested in SUM 2793 by 28 October 2016 and to pay costs fixed at $400 for SUM 2793 (the “Discovery Order”). Although the respondent attended the hearing of SUM 2793, he did not take any steps to comply with the Discovery Order. He also did not inform the complainant that an application had been made or that an order had ensued against...