Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date31 August 2010
Date31 August 2010
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 1048 of 2008
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Law Society of Singapore
Defendant

[2010] SGHC 263

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Originating Summons No 1048 of 2008

High Court

Legal Profession–Disciplinary proceedings–Applicant partially successful in quashing findings of Council of Law Society–Whether costs could be ordered against Law Society–Whether proceedings related to public interest litigation–Whether Law Society fulfilling its statutory function–Section 96 (4) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff, Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd, lodged a complaint against an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore ( the Complaint ), with the defendant, the Law Society of Singapore ( the Law Society ). The Review Committee recommended that an Inquiry Committee look into the merits of the Complaint. An Inquiry Committee was duly constituted and it recommended the Council of the Law Society to dismiss the Complaint but imposed a fine of $500 for breaching the Law Society's practice directions. The Council of the Law Society accepted and adopted the findings of the Inquiry Committee.

In the present proceedings, the plaintiff sought judicial review of the decision of the Council of the Law Society to dismiss the Complaint, under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) ( the LPA ). The court affirmed part of the Inquiry Committee's findings but directed the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to look into two matters. On the issue of costs, the Law Society argued that no costs order should be made against it on two main grounds, that: (a) the present proceedings related to a public interest litigation such that no costs should be ordered against the Law Society who did not choose to initiate or defend the litigation; and (b) it (the Law Society) was not a civil litigant and should, therefore, not be penalized on costs when it came to fulfilling its statutory function.

Held, ordering the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings:

(1) In cases involving appeals or reviews to the higher courts, the court's discretion to award costs against the Law Society under s 96 of the LPA was specifically provided for and unfettered. The principle, that costs follow the event, was one important consideration, but it had to be considered alongside a multitude of other possible factors in reaching a just decision. Each case fell to be determined on its own facts: at [11], [15] and [30].

(2) In proceedings brought under s 96 of the LPA, it would not be in the public interest for the Law Society to strongly defend its decision in the face of any challenge, regardless of whether it was legitimate or reasonable to do so. No legal question of public interest was raised on the facts of the present case. As such, the Law Society did not further the public interest by opposing or resisting a challenge of its decision: at [17] and [18].

(3) The Law Society participated in the hearing in its capacity as the maker of its decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint and with a view to defending its own decision. It was not acting as a regulator ensuring that cases of possible professional misconduct were properly investigated and, if appropriate, made the subject of a formal complaint before a disciplinary tribunal in the public interest and in the exercise of a public function. There was also no duty imposed on the Law Society to resist or oppose the application made under s 96 of the LPA: at [30], [38] and [42].

(4) The Law Society was ordered to pay half of the plaintiff's costs. The plaintiff acted reasonably in commencing the present proceedings to review the decision of the Council of the Law Society. Since the plaintiff was successful in defeating part of the Council of the Law Society's decision, it should therefore be allowed to recover some of its costs. On the other hand, the Law Society was successful in other respects. Much of the difficulties faced by the Inquiry Committee were the result of the messy presentation of the Complaint lodged by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's absence at the inquiry despite the Inquiry Committee's invitation to the plaintiff, which compounded the difficulties: at [50].

Ang Boon Kong Lawrence v Law Society of Singapore [1990] 2 SLR (R) 783; [1990] SLR 1312 (refd)

Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2008] 1 WLR 426 (distd)

Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2006] 3 All ER 675 (refd)

Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants [1988] 2 SLR (R) 597; [1988] SLR 999 (refd)

Chua Ah Beng v Commissioner for Labour [2002] 2 SLR (R) 945; [2002] 4 SLR 854 (refd)

Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence [1992] 3 SLR (R) 825; [1993] 1 SLR 522 (refd)

Lim Chor Pee, Re [1990] 2 SLR (R) 117; [1990] SLR 809 (refd)

Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council [2005] 3 SLR (R) 709; [2005] 3 SLR 709 (refd)

Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72 (refd)

R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 WLR 2600 (distd)

Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, Re [2007] 2 SLR (R) 95; [2007] 2 SLR 95 (refd)

Singh Kalpanath, Re [1992] 1 SLR (R) 595; [1992] 2 SLR 639 (refd)

Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad [1995] 1 SLR (R) 279; [1996] 2 SLR 609 (refd)

Tullio Planeta v Maoro Andrea G [1994] 2 SLR (R) 501; [1994] 2 SLR 489 (refd)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,2001 Rev Ed) s 96 (4) (consd) ;ss 38 (1) ,84 (1) , 85 (1) ,85 (1A) , 85 (6) ,85 (8) , 85 (9) ,85 (10) , 96,96 (1) , 97 (1) ,97 (3) , 103 (3) ,103 (4)

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161,2009 Rev Ed) ss 87 (1) , 95

Legal Profession Act (Cap 217,1970 Rev Ed) ss 88, 95

Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) rr 3, 7 (1) (a) (iv)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34 (2) (b)

Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47) (UK) ss 46, 47 (2) ,47 (2) (i) ,49 (4)

Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules2007 (SI 2007 No 3588) (UK) r 16 (5)

Bajwa Ragbir Singh (Bajwa & Co) for the plaintiff

Mohan Pillay and Yeo Boon Tat (M Pillay) for the defendant.

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Introduction

1 By a letter dated 29 January 2007, the plaintiff, Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd, lodged a complaint with the defendant, the Law Society of Singapore ( the Law Society ). In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Mr Andre Arul ( Mr Arul ), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore practicing at M/s Arul Chew & Partners, had: (a) rendered exorbitant bills of costs contrary to agreed costs at $25,000; (b) received strict instructions from the plaintiff not to transfer any money from the client's account; and (c) in defiance of those specific instructions, transferred $54,909 and $32,000 respectively from the client's account to satisfy the solicitor's bills of costs which were disputed by the plaintiff. This same complaint was re-lodged on 19 April 2007 ( the Complaint ) because the Law Society required the appropriate letter of authority from the plaintiff, being a body corporate, to authorise its managing director, Mr Peter Bader ( Mr Bader ), to lodge the complaint on its behalf. In connection with the Complaint, Mr Bader swore two statutory declarations.

2 On or about 7 May 2007, a Review Committee was formed to review the Complaint. The Review Committee recommended that the Complaint be referred to an Inquiry Committee to look into the merits of the Complaint pursuant to s 85 (10) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) ( the LPA ). Based on the terms of reference provided by the Review Committee, the Inquiry Committee was constituted to inquire into the Complaint on or about 7 January 2008. On or about 10 June 2008, the Inquiry Committee concluded its inquiry and rendered its findings in a written report to the Council of the Law Society. The Inquiry Committee recommended the Council of the Law Society to: (a) dismiss the Complaint lodged by the plaintiff as there was no merit to the Complaint; but (b) impose a fine of $500 on Mr Arul for breaching the Law Society's practice directions in relation to r 7 (1) (a) (iv) of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1999 Rev Ed) ( the Solicitors' Accounts Rules ), which required a solicitor to give adequate notice to his client of any transfer of moneys from a client's account.

3 The findings of the Inquiry Committee were accepted and adopted by the Council of the Law Society. For the reasons stated in the Inquiry Committee's report, the Council of the Law Society decided that a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal was unnecessary and dismissed the Complaint.

4 On or about 11 August 2008, the plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 1048 of 2008/T ( OS 1048 ) to seek judicial review of the decision of the Council of the Law Society to dismiss its Complaint against Mr Arul under s 96 of the LPA.

5 At the conclusion of the adjourned hearing on 23 October 2009, the court:

(a) affirmed the Inquiry Committee's finding that there was no agreement on fees between the plaintiff and Mr Arul;

(b) directed the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to look into two matters, namely, to investigate whether Mr Arul, as solicitor for the plaintiff, was in breach:

(i) of his professional duties by disobeying the plaintiff's instructions contained in two e-mails dated 7 July 2006 and 24 August 2006 respectively, by placing a sum of $114,440.97 on 7 August 2006 into the client's account with M/s Arul Chew & Partners and also transferring moneys in payment of the solicitor's fees;

(ii) of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules by placing a sum of $10,000 which he received on 11 August 2006 into his firm's office account instead of the client's account with M/s Arul Chew & Partners.

(c) ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings in OS 1048.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • January 8, 2021
    ...it sought – and was granted – leave pursuant to s 34(2)(b) of the SCJA (see Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore [2011] 1 SLR 291 at [7]). The Court of Appeal first addressed the Law Society’s arguments on the Baxendale-Walker principle and held that it would have dismis......
  • Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • April 7, 2011
    ...(“Arul”) on the complaint of Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd (“Top Ten”) (see Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore [2011] 1 SLR 291 (“the GD”)). The Law Society was ordered to pay 50% of Top Ten’s costs in the OS brought pursuant to s 96(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap......
1 books & journal articles
  • Legal Profession
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2011, December 2011
    • December 1, 2011
    ...Nature of disciplinary proceedings 20.29 Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd[2011] 2 SLR 1279 (Top Ten) reversing [2011] 1 SLR 291, is a fitting case with which to conclude this review. During the last decade, far ranging changes have occurred in the law of the legal pr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT