Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 23 October 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 212
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1172 of
• Date: 23 October 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Cheong Yuen Hee and Subbiah Pillai (Pillai & Pillai)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 212
• Defendant Counsel: CR Rajah SC and Chew Kei-Jin (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Disclosure to person under investigation,Administrative Law,Reasonable notice,Whether interview of complainant must be conducted in plaintiff's presence,s 86(8) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Inquiry into complaints,Inquiry Committee,Whether refusal to grant extension of time for filing of submissions unreasonable,Natural justice,Disciplinary procedures,Legal Profession,Whether rules of natural justice breached in conduct of proceedings,Interview of witnesses,Procedure

: This was an application by Subbiah Pillai, an advocate and solicitor, to nullify the proceedings of the Law Society`s Inquiry Committee No 45 of 1999. The defendants are members of the Inquiry Committee. Mr Pillai alleged that the rules of natural justice were not observed in the conduct of the proceedings. The proceedings commenced with a letter dated 18 November 1999 from the chairman of the Committee, Mr Wong Meng Meng, to Mr Pillai informing him that a complaint had been lodged against him by Mr S Shanmugam and Madam S Sudhendra in a letter dated 10 August 1999 which I shall refer to as `Mr Shanmugam`s letter` for convenience.

The complaint related to Mr Pillai`s conduct as solicitor for the complainants in their purchase of 19 and 21 Upper Dickson Road (`the property`). It appears from Mr Shanmugam`s letter that he (Mr Shanmugam) was unable to service the bank loan that he had taken for the purchase of the $4.5m property. Mr Pillai then offered to buy the property in his (Mr Pillai`s) sister`s name. His sister was then studying the in United States of America. Mr Pillai then informed the bank`s solicitors that his sister had paid the ten (10) per cent deposit and it was held by his firm, Yong Koh & Pillai. Mr Shanmugam alleged that no deposit was in fact paid by Mr Pillai`s sister (Miss Vasanthi Pillai). He also alleged that from the completion accounts he learnt that he was made to pay the stamp fees for Miss Vasanthi when he had not agreed to do so, and neither did he agree to a direct debit of $12,564.80 to Yong Koh & Pillai. There was also a complaint that Mr Pillai completed the initial purchase before the Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) was issued.

The second part of Mr Shanmugam`s complaint was that Mr Pillai subsequently told him that his sister would not be purchasing the property after all and, threatening him with violence from gangsters, forced Mr Shanmugam to re-purchase the property. Mr Shanmugam pleaded with Mr Pillai to allow his (Shanmugam`s) brother to take over as purchaser. His brother consequently signed three purchase agreements as purchaser and Miss Vasanthi as vendor. These agreements were witnessed by Mr Pillai. Mr Shanmugam also suspected that Miss Vasanthi`s signature might be forged because she was not in Singapore at the material times.

Mr Shanmugam`s complaint was written in a rambling style and was insufficiently detailed. It was not a complete story. For example, it was not known from this letter whether the sale of the property was eventually completed. It was also not apparent how much he sold the property for and how much his brother paid to purchase it from Miss Vasanthi. Nonetheless, it carried aspersions of a sufficiently serious nature to require an explanation from the solicitor concerned.

On 2 December 1999 Mr Pillai gave his written explanation. He qualified his explanation by saying that he had not received the file from his former firm Yong Koh & Pillai. Mr Pillai`s position was that he was introduced to Mr Shanmugam in early 1994 by a mutual friend. He was asked to help Mr Shanmugam purchase the property, but he passed the matter to his partner Mr Patrick Koh because he had never done any conveyancing work at all. He had no knowledge of what transpired thereafter as he was not in Singapore most of that time. Mr Pillai also asserted that it was obvious from the documentary evidence that Mr Shanmugam was aware that a TOP was necessary.

Mr Pillai stated that Mr Shanmugam had to sell the property so soon after buying it because he had run into debt. He denied agreeing to buy the property from Mr Shanmugam who, after that, approached Mr Pillai`s mother directly for help. Mr Pillai`s mother then asked his sister Vasanthi to purchase the property. He stated that his sister, being a lawyer herself, imposed certain conditions on Mr Shanmugam. These included a `buy-back` clause. He stated that his sister was led to believe that her mortgage payments would be met by rentals of $25,000 a month which Mr Shanmugam would pay to her; a promise unfulfilled. Thus, a frustrated Miss Vasanthi decided to exercise her right to demand that Mr Shanmugam buys back the property. I have set out the nature of the complaint in order to cast this action in its context. The merits of the complaint are of no importance in the proceedings before me.

The Inquiry Committee (the `Committee`) scheduled a meeting with Mr Pillai and his counsel Mr Cheong Yuen Hee on 25 February 2000 at Mr Wong Meng Meng`s office. Mr Pillai stated in his affidavit of 7 August 2000 that the complainants (Mr Shanmugam and Madam Sudhendra) were also present and were interviewed by the Committee for about an hour in a separate room. The Committee then interviewed Mr Pillai (accompanied by Mr Cheong) in the presence of Mr Shanmugam.

The Committee then interviewed Miss Vasanthi and examined her passport. Mr Pillai was questioned again after her. Mr Pillai asserted that at this meeting on 25 February 2000 the Committee `did not touch upon any question of possible misconduct on my part arising out of the fact that my sister had purchased the properties from the complainants and their subsequent re-sale to Mr Shanmugam`s brother`. A second meeting was held on 20 April 2000 at Mr Wong`s office. The complainant and his counsel also attended this meeting. Mr Pillai was orally asked to submit his written submission by 10 May 2000. The complainants` counsel Mr Nathan, informed Mr Wong Meng Meng that his clients had a complaint against Mr Pillai concerning money lending which was set out in a handwritten letter to the Law Society dated 16 July 1999. Mr Wong told him that he should have the letter transcribed before the Committee will consider it.

On 24 April 2000 the Committee wrote to the complainants and Mr Pillai to submit their written submissions. In addition, it requested Mr Pillai to make his submissions in respect of the question of a conflict of interests in acting for the complainants and his own sister in the sale of the properties. Mr Pillai`s counsel submitted a written submission dated 10 May 2000 to address all the issues raised thus far, including the question of a conflict of interests. He complained, however, that Mr Pillai felt aggrieved that unknown to him, the complainant`s counsel had also sent a written submission to the Committee.

On 25 July 2000 the Committee held the third meeting with Mr Pillai and his counsel at Mr Wong Meng Meng`s office. Mr Cheong submitted that the Committee unfairly confronted Mr Pillai with documents he had never seen before. These concerned the sale and purchase of Mr Shanmugam`s house at 30 Woodsville Close. He was also asked to explain matters not related to Mr Shanmugam`s original complaints. Further, Mr Wong Meng Meng took out the letter dated 16 July 1999 written by Mr Shanmugam to the Law Society complaining against Mr Pillai. The letter was now in a type-written form as directed by Mr Wong previously. In this complaint Mr Shanmugam alleged that Mr Pillai was introduced to him by a Mr Leow as a money lender. He borrowed $95,000 from Mr Pillai. It was later explained by the complainants that this loan was for the purchase of 19 and 21 Upper Dickson Road. A signed statement from Mr Leow was also produced. When Mr Wong realised that the Committee had inadvertently failed to send copies of these documents to Mr Pillai, he provided them straightaway.

Mr Cheong challenged the Committee`s jurisdiction to inquire into these matters. It is not quite clear to me what the basis of his challenge was. He seemed to think that the matter constituted a fresh complaint and must be properly referred to Mr Pillai as such; at the same time he also believed that the matter could not be delved into at that stage because it had already been considered by the Council of the Law Society and discarded. Mr Wong maintained that the Committee had jurisdiction, but nonetheless invited Mr Cheong to present his arguments on the question of jurisdiction by 3 August 2000. It was made clear to Mr Pillai and Mr Cheong that they need not respond on the merits until the jurisdiction point was settled. A further meeting was scheduled to be held 13 days later on 7 August 2000 with the agreement of Mr Cheong and his client. On the next day, 26 July 2000, Mr Pillai wrote to the Committee himself asking for various particulars, including when the Committee received Mr Shanmugam`s letter of 16 July 1999, and at the same time asked for an extension of time for submitting his arguments. Mr Wong had, in the meantime, left the country and Mr Pillai`s request was not considered. Instead, Mr Wong`s secretary wrote to say that Mr Wong will attend to it when he returns in a week`s time. Mr Wong subsequently wrote to Mr Pillai by letter dated 1 August 2000 setting out his recollection of what transpired at his office on 25 July 2000. A further meeting with the Committee was fixed for 7 August 2000 at Mr Wong`s office. In the morning of 7 August 2000 Mr Pillai filed this action in court and intimated to the Committee that he would not be attending the meeting that day because he considered the Inquiry Committee`s proceedings against him to be null and void. The Committee nonetheless proceeded with the proceedings and, after noting Mr Pillai`s absence, went ahead and prepared its report to the Council of the Law Society. In its report, it recommended that a formal inquiry be instituted against Mr Pillai in respect of the complaint dated 10 August 1999. It also made a similar recommendation in respect of the 10 July 1999 complaint (`the money lending complaint`).

Before me Mr Cheong argued that the rules of natural justice were breached when the Committee held discussions with Mr Shanmugam the complainant, without Mr Pillai`s presence. He also alleged that the Committee was unfair in giving a copy of his written explanation of 2 December 1999 as well as his submission of 10 May 2000 to the complainant. Mr Cheong further...