Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore (No 4)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 07 December 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 365
• Date: 07 December 2001
• Subject Matter: Council of Law Society accepting and adopting report of inquiry committee,Preparation of client's affidavit,Whether inquiry committee to follow particular procedure,Council accepting and adopting report of inquiry committee,Plaintiff unhappy with Council's decision,Professional conduct,Legal Profession,Whether to allow application,Whether Council to give reasons for accepting and adopting report of inquiry committee,Whether inquiry committee acting contrary to rules of natural justice,Whether complainant may raise points not raised before inquiry committee,Application by plaintiff for order directing Law Society to apply to Chief Justice for appointment of disciplinary committee,Role of inquiry committee,Plaintiff lodging complaint against fellow solicitors with Law Society,Whether counsel under duty to verify truth of client's deposition in affidavit,Extent to which inquiry committee may investigate complaint,Failure to give plaintiff an oral hearing,s 96 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1573 of
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Yang Lih Shyng (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person

:

Background

Wee Soon Kim Anthony (`Mr Wee`) is the plaintiff in this action. The Law Society of Singapore (`the Law Society`) is the defendant.

Mr Wee and his family had entered into a banker-customer relationship with UBS AG (`UBS`).

On or about 14 April 1999, UBS filed Originating Summons No 546 of 1999 (`OS 546/99`) against Mr Wee, his wife and their son in respect of the return of assets held by UBS.

On 24 June 1999, OS 546/99 came up for hearing before Lee Seiu Kin JC. There were settlement talks then and the matter was settled with costs to be decided by the court. Lee JC heard the arguments on costs and ordered costs to be borne by Mr Wee.

Subsequently Mr Wee lodged a written complaint dated 18 August 1999 with the Law Society against Mr Davinder Singh SC (`Mr Singh`) and Mr Hri Kumar (`Mr Kumar`) who had acted for UBS in OS 546/99. I will refer to Mr Singh and Mr Kumar collectively as `the solicitors`.

Mr Wee is himself an advocate and solicitor. Indeed, he is a very senior member of the bar.

In the letter of complaint, Mr Wee alleged that the solicitors had knowingly prepared an affidavit of one Shirreen Sin Meng Mei (`Ms Sin`), an employee of UBS, which contained certain false allegations and/or otherwise permitted Ms Sin to perjure herself in a court of law.

The reference to perjury was also in relation to the same affidavit complained of. The affidavit complained of was the second affidavit of Ms Sin filed on or about 27 May 1999 in OS 546/99.

The letter of complaint referred to various falsehoods in Ms Sin`s affidavit as Falsehoods [num ]1 to [num ]4.

The Council of the Law Society considered Mr Wee`s complaint and came to the conclusion that on the authority of Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1998] 1 SLR 97 , no information of misconduct was disclosed in the letter of complaint and the Council accordingly would not take any further action on the complaint.

Mr Wee was not satisfied and after an exchange of correspondence with the Law Society, he filed OS 37/2000 against the Law Society where he sought various declaratory and other reliefs.

Originating Summons No 37 of 2000 came before Justice Lai Kew Chai for hearing on 25 April 2000. Following the authority of Suppiah v Law Society of Singapore [1984-1985] SLR 311 [1986] 1 MLJ 459 , Lai J ruled, inter alia, that Falsehood [num ]4 should have been referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel.

Pursuant to this decision, the Council of the Law Society referred the matter to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel and an inquiry committee was constituted to look into the complaint with regard only to Falsehood [num ]4.

The members of the inquiry committee (`IC`) were:

(1) Mr Quentin Loh Sze On SC (Chairman);

(2) Mr Aloysius Leng;

(3) Mr Rahim Jalil; and

(4) Dr James Chang.

The IC`s report was dated 19 September 2000. The IC were of the unanimous view that there was no substance in the complaint and recommended that no further action be taken save as to dismiss the complaint.

The Council adopted the IC`s recommendation.

Mr Wee then filed the present OS 1573/2000 under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed) (`the LPA`) for the following primary reliefs:

(1) An order that the defendants do apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee (as defined in the Act) to investigate into the plaintiff`s complaint dated 18 August 1999.

(2) An order that the plaintiff shall have the conduct of proceedings before the disciplinary committee and of any subsequent proceedings before the court under s 98 of the Act, and that any such proceedings shall be brought in the name of the plaintiff.

The complaint - Falsehood [num ]4

Paragraph 5 of Ms Sin`s second affidavit states:

I introduced Wee to the Plaintiff`s banking services sometime in August 1997. My discussions with Wee took place in Singapore. As a result of these discussions, the Defendant opened a joint account No. 110628 ("the Singapore Account") on 18 August 1997 and two accounts in Hong Kong: a joint account No. 207012 on 18 August 1997 and an account in Wee`s sole name No. 207038 on 26 August 1999 ( sic). The account opening forms for all the three accounts were prepared by the Plaintiff in Singapore and executed by the Defendants in Singapore.

Mr Wee`s complaint was that para 5 was false and was made to found an argument on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. This falsehood was knowingly made because the `internal records` of UBS revealed that the account opening documents for account Nos 110628, 207012 and 207038 were not all prepared in Singapore.

The complaint went on to state the following facts:

(1) only two sets of the standard account opening forms relating to 110628 and 207012 dated 18 August 1997 were prepared and duly witnessed by Ms Sin in Singapore;

(2) one similar set of standard account opening forms relating to 207038 and dated 26 August 1997 was prepared and duly witnessed by one Sheila Wong of UBS in Hong Kong;

(3) Mr Wee was in Hong Kong on 26 August 1997 when Sheila Wong attended to him and presented the account opening forms for the purposes of obtaining his signature thereon to open his personal account 207038 in Hong Kong. The complaint exhibited pages of Mr Wee`s passport to show that he was in Hong Kong from 24 August to 11 September 1997.

The solicitors` explanation (with a statement from Ms Sin and one from Matthias Lee)

The solicitors gave a written explanation dated 21 July 2000. Paragraph 4(6) thereof asserted that Mr Wee did not file any affidavit disputing that the account opening forms for the three accounts were executed in Singapore.

The solicitors` counsel, Mr Jimmy Yim SC, who appeared before the IC noted that Falsehood [num ]4 was never raised as an issue before Lee JC.

On the other hand, para 5 of the written explanation noted that Mr Wee did assert that the account opening form for Account No 207038 was executed by him in Hong Kong (see para 33 of Mr Wee`s second affidavit executed on 10 June 1999 in OS 546/99), although it was apparently true that Falsehood [num ]4 was never raised as an issue before Lee JC.

The written explanation enclosed, inter alia, a statement by Ms Sin dated 21 July 2000 (`Ms Sin`s first statement`). She stated that although Mr Wee was in Hong Kong on 26 August 1997, this did not prove that the account opening form relating to Account No 207038 was signed in Hong Kong.

She explained in her statement that:

6 Account opening forms are not always dated the same day that they are signed. Sometimes, the forms are signed by clients and dates later inserted. In particular, forms relating to accounts to be opened in foreign branches of the Bank are sent to that branch to be processed. The foreign branch may then insert the date.

7 The bank officer who signs on the account opening form may not necessarily have witnessed the signature. The bank officer is only required to verify the customer`s signature on the account opening form. He or she is not required to witness it. The verification may take place on a later date by comparing the customer`s signature against the records maintained by the bank.

8 As an illustration, I annexed hereto and mark "A", a copy of the Letter of Charge executed by Wee in respect of Account No. 207038. The Letter of Charge was executed by Wee in Singapore in my presence. The Letter of Charge is dated 3 September 1997. According to Wee, he was in Hong Kong from 24 August 1997 to 11 September 1997 but I was not in Hong Kong over that period.

In other words, Mr Wee was relying on a letter of charge in respect of Account No 207038 dated 26 August 1997 which appeared to be witnessed by Sheila Wong in Hong Kong but Ms Sin was pointing out that there was another letter of charge, also in respect of Account No 207038, but dated 3 September 1997. This second letter of charge was signed by Mr Wee before her in Singapore.

Ms Sin`s signature was on the second letter of charge. Yet, if reliance was to be placed solely on the date thereon and Mr Wee`s passport, Mr Wee could not have signed it before Ms Sin on that date as she was not in Hong Kong then.

Ms Sin added:

9 To the best of my recollection and belief, Wee did execute all the account opening forms in Singapore. I recall that I personally handed a number of account opening forms to Wee at his residence in Singapore at 38 Jalan Arnap, Singapore 249344. All the forms were subsequently returned to me in Singapore duly executed. I therefore honestly believed that all the forms were executed in Singapore.

10 Wee alleges that Ms Sheila Wong ("Ms Wong"), an employee of the Bank`s Hong Kong branch, witnessed his signature on the form in Hong Kong. It appears from the form that Ms Wong verified Wee`s signature. As explained above, this does not necessarily mean that Ms Wong witnessed Wee`s signature. Ms Wong left the Bank in or about late 1997/early 1998. I therefore did not speak with Ms Wong before I affirmed my 2nd affidavit as she had by then already left the Bank.

11 I recall that I dealt with a colleague, Mr Matthias Lee ("Mr Lee"), a legal officer of the Bank, on the contents of my 2nd affidavit. Mr Lee has also left the Bank. I also met Mr Kumar and his assistant, Ms Arul Selvi, together with Mr Lee on 19 May 1999 to discuss the said contents.

12 To the best of my recollection, I was asked at the meeting by Mr Kumar where the account opening forms were executed. I told him that they were executed in Singapore. I based my instructions on my recollection of events and my genuine belief as set out above. As Wee admits, the forms for two of the accounts were executed in Singapore. Drew & Napier did not have access to the Bank`s records, save for such documents as were given to them by us.

Ms Sin`s second statement

Ms Sin subsequently made a second statement dated 30 August 2000. She elaborated that the document which Mr Wee had relied on to...