Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 09 March 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 44
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 27 March 2013
• Year: 2001
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wee Soon Kim in person
• Defendant Counsel: Jimmy Yim SC and Sivaj Omar (Drew & Napier),Goh Yun Dee (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Citation: [2001] SGHC 44

JUDGMENT:

Grounds of Decision

1. In this Originating Summons (OS), the Plaintiff, Mr Wee Soon Kim Anthony, applied for an order that the Defendant, The Law Society of Singapore (the Law Society), do apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Committee under Section 96 of the Legal Profession Act (LPA) to investigate into Mr Wees complaint against two solicitors (the Solicitors) dated 18 August 1999. Other consequential orders were also sought.

2. By a Summons In Chambers No 604565 of 2000, the Solicitors applied to be added as Interveners in the action on the ground that they have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the OS. On 8 January 2001, the Assistant Registrar Ms May Loh granted the application. Mr Wee appealed against that order and on 6 February 2001, I dismissed his appeal with costs.

3. Mr Wee has appealed against my decision.

The Background

4. The background to the OS and the Solicitors application is set out in paras 4 to 10 of the first affidavit of Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh of which paras 5 and 6 were derived from the Grounds of Decision of Lai Kew Chai J in Originating Summons No 37 of 2000. Paragraphs 4 to 10 state:

4. By a letter dated 18 August 1999, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Law Society against HK and me. A copy of the letter is annexed hereto as "DS-1".

5. In appears from paragraph 9 of the Honourable Justice Lai Kew Chais Grounds of Decision that by a letter dated 5 November 1999, the Director of the Law Society stated that a meeting of the Council of the Law Society had decided that, in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew, the Plaintiffs letter of complaint disclosed no information of misconduct that must be referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Committee. The Plaintiff asked the Council for the basis upon which the Court of Appeal "empowered the Council to disregard due process of an inquiry committee to determine the facts complained of".

6. In appears from paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Honourable Justice Lai Kew Chais Grounds of Decision that by a letter dated 9 December 1999, the then President of the Law Society provided the Plaintiff with an explanation. The Plaintiff asserted that the explanation left him "none the wiser".

7. The Plaintiff then commenced proceedings against the Law Society in OS 37/2000 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the Law Society should have referred the Plaintiffs letter of complaint dated 18 August 1999 against HK and I to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel.

8. The application was heard before the Honourable Justice Lai Kew Chai. The Learned Judge delivered his judgment on 4 August 2000, and found that of the four alleged "falsehoods", three were "baseless and frivolous and plainly did not and could not fall within" Section 85(1) of the Act. As for the fourth alleged "falsehood", His Honour found that it fell within Section 85(1) of the Act, but added that "whether there is a prima facie case of misconduct against [HK and me] is a matter strictly for the Inquiry Committee to be constituted". A copy of the Learned Judges Grounds of Decision is annexed hereto as "DS-2".

9. An Inquiry Committee was constituted to investigate this complaint. Following a hearing of the complaint, the Inquiry Committee recommended the dismissal of the complaint. By a letter dated 26 September 2000, the Law Society informed HK and me that the Council of the Law Council had determined pursuant to Section 87 of the Act that formal investigation of our conduct by a Disciplinary Committee was not necessary, and that the complaint was dismissed. A copy of this letter is annexed hereto as "DS-3".

10. By this Originating Summons, the Plaintiff has now seeks, inter alia, an order compelling the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Committee to investigate into the Plaintiffs complaint dated 18 August 1999.

5. The Solicitors application to be added as Interveners was made under O 15 r 6(2)(b) which states:

Misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties (O.15, r.6).

6(1) .

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may, on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application

(a) .

(b) order any or the following persons to be added as a party, namely:...