Low Gim Siah v The Law Society of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Phai Cheng JC
• Judgment Date: 05 December 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 176
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 789 of 1991
• Date: 05 December 1991
• Year: 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: N Sreenivasan (Derrick Ravi & Partners)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 176
• Defendant Counsel: S Radakrishnan (Bernard Rada & Lee)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Reasons to be given to complainant,Documents necessary to allow complainant to decide whether to appeal,Meaning of 'reasons in writing'- Report to be available to court when reviewing of inquiry committee's decision,Intention of Parliament,Statutory Interpretation,Disciplinary procedures,Recommendation to Council that no formal investigation necessary,Purposive approach,Inquiry committee,Whether inquiry committee report and respondent's explanations to be given to complainant,Complainant entitled to inquiry committee report and respondent's explanations,Legal Profession,Inquiry into professional misconduct,No formal investigation necessary,s 96 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed),Literal approach rejected,'Reasons in writing',Construction of statute,Words and Phrases,ss 87(3) & 96(2) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed)

Cur Adv Vult

On 17 December 1990 the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Mr Kirpal Singh (`Kirpal`), an advocate and solicitor, alleging that Kirpal was guilty of professional misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an advocate and solicitor when he acted for the plaintiff and his sister, Low Gim Har, in the application for the grant of probate for the estate of Low Yok Kay (deceased) and for other matters connected therewith. The said Low Yok Kay is the late father of the applicant and his sister who are the co-executors and co-trustees of their father`s estate.

The plaintiff`s complaint was referred to an inquiry committee constituted under s 85(5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1990 Ed) (`the Act`) for investigation. Briefly, the crux of his complaint related to the manner in which Kirpal had conducted himself in the conduct of the estate matters of the plaintiff`s late father, in particular Kirpal`s biased attitude against the plaintiff and in favour of his sister. The plaintiff`s sister has been Kirpal`s secretary for more than two decades. The inquiry committee met and inquired into the complaint and reported to the Council of the Law Society (`the Council`) that the complaint does not merit a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee. The report of the inquiry committee was accepted by the Council.

By a letter dated 5 August 1991, the executive director of the Council informed the plaintiff that his complaint was dismissed. The said letter reads:

Complaint against Mr Kirpal Singh

I refer to the above matter.

The inquiry committee of the Law Society has met and inquired into your complaint and has reported to the Council of the Law Society that your complaint does not merit a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee. The Council has accepted this report and the complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

By a letter dated 7 August 1991, the plaintiff`s solicitors requested the Law Society to let them have the reasons of the Council for their determination that a formal investigation is not necessary. They also asked for a copy of the report of the inquiry committee.

By a letter dated 10 August 1991, the executive director of the Council replied to the plaintiff`s solicitors as follows:

Complaint by Mr Low Gim Siah against Mr Kirpal Singh

We refer to your letter dated the 7th instant.

The reasons why the Council determined that a formal investigation was not necessary was because Council accepted the findings of the inquiry committee as set out below. These findings were arrived at by the inquiry committee after considering the written complaint, the written reply by the respondent, Mr Kirpal Singh, further submissions and explanations, all documentary evidence produced and after hearing your client, the complainant, and the respondent.

Inquiry committee`s findings

...

Conclusions

In the light of the foregoing, the inquiry committee was of the view that no formal investigation by a disciplinary committee was required and recommended that the complaints against the respondent be dismissed.

I ought to mention that in the above letter the Council reproduced the inquiry committee`s findings in approximately three pages.

On 19 August 1991 the plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the determination of the Council, applied under s 96 of the Act for the following orders:

(a) that a copy of the report of the inquiry committee, together with a copy of the explanations of the respondent (ie Kirpal), be forwarded to the plaintiff by the defendants; and

(b) that the defendants be directed to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee to hear and investigate the plaintiff`s complaint against the respondent.

When this summons was first heard before this court, a direction was given for the application in respect of the first order mentioned above to be heard first. Therefore in this judgment, I shall only deal with the plaintiff`s application for the first order.

The plaintiff`s reasons for being dissatisfied with the determination of the Council were as follows:

(a) At the hearing of the inquiry committee held on 25 May 1991 which the plaintiff attended with his solicitor, the inquiry committee sought certain clarifications from him. In the course of the hearing, oral references were made to the written explanation of Kirpal. Although the plaintiff`s solicitor requested for a copy of the explanation, the request was turned down by the inquiry committee. The plaintiff was therefore unaware of Kirpal`s explanation and was unable to give evidence as to the truth or falsity of the explanation.

(b) The inquiry committee did not consider Kirpal`s actions in totality and instead chose to look at each incident separately and in isolation. Even if the particular incidents do not merit a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee, Kirpal`s actions taken together and viewed as a series of acts may constitute conduct that merit a formal investigation by a disciplinary committee.

(c) The inquiry committee appeared to have accepted Kirpal`s explanation entirely. The inquiry committee did not allow the plaintiff to have sight of Kirpal`s explanation or offer the plaintiff an opportunity to rebut Kirpal`s assertions except for certain matters raised at the hearing. The inquiry committee could not have reached a fair and accurate decision without having done so.

It is the plaintiff`s contention that this court should grant the first order sought by him on the following grounds:

(a) The documents applied for are necessary for the determination of the other prayer in this summons. The plaintiff has to decide if he wants to proceed with his application for a disciplinary committee to be appointed, particularly as he would have to conduct the proceedings before such a disciplinary committee, if it is appointed.

(b) The reasons in writing given by the Council are not full and sufficient and do not deal with the substantial points which are at issue.

(c) The report of the inquiry committee and the explanations of Kirpal are not privileged documents which are protected from disclosure.

Since the Council accepted the findings of the inquiry committee in toto and it is the function of this court to review the Council`s decision that a formal investigation by the disciplinary committee is not necessary, this court will have to -

(a) examine the complaint made by the plaintiff to the Law Society and the supporting documents;

(b) consider Kirpal`s explanation and all other documentary evidence furnished to the inquiry committee; and

(c) review the findings of facts and law of the inquiry committee, in particular the weight that they gave to the explanations, their consideration of the oral evidence taken and their conclusions, including the reasoning which gave rise to the conclusions,

in order to make a decision as to whether this court should affirm the determination of the Council or direct the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee.

The plaintiff`s counsel submitted that in the discharge of its functions under s 96 of the Act, this court is in effect...