Yusuf Jumabhoy v The Law Society of Singapore

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong JC
• Judgment Date: 19 January 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 7
• Date: 19 January 1988
• Subject Matter: Whether right to oral hearing before Inquiry Committee exists,Whether complaint valid and substantiated,Complaint against advocate and solicitor,Legal Profession,ss 87(5) & 96 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161),Disciplinary procedures
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 65 of 1987
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: AC Fergusson (AC Fergusson)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: B Mohan Singh (B Mohan Singh & Co)

Cur Adv Vult

On 2 September 1986, the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Teo Eng Leong (Teo) for extortion. The complaint was supported by (a) a copy of a report dated 13 August 1986 which he had made to the police; (b) a copy of a form of receipt marked `A`; (c) a memorandum marked `B`; and (d) a copy of a telex marked `C`.

The report to the police contained the following allegations:

(1) the plaintiff had handed to one Wong Yiu Kong for repair a gold and diamond necklace valued at about $20,000;

(2) Wong did not return the necklace after repairing it;

(3) on 8 August 1986, the plaintiff went to see Teo, who was acting for Wong, for the return of the necklace and was told by Teo that it would be returned if the plaintiff paid the sum of $9,269 being Wong`s charges for making the said necklace; the plaintiff told Teo that he had paid for the necklace in full but Teo maintained that the said sum must be paid before he would release the necklace;

(4) so as not to lose the necklace altogether, the plaintiff, on 12 August 1982, went to see Teo with $9,269 in cash and the receipt marked `A`; Teo amended the form of the receipt to `protect` his client and as a result receipt `B` came to be signed;

(5) the plaintiff signed the receipt in order to obtain the return of his property; what Teo had done amounted to extortion and he had, immediately after the event, sent a telex to Teo in protest.

Receipt `A` read as follows:

Received from: Mr YR Jumabhoy

The sum of: Nine thousand two hundred and sixty nine dollars.

Being: Payment made to obtain return of a diamond and gold necklace handed for clasp repair to Mr Wong Yiu Kong on 5/8/86 and retained by him against funds owing to him by Yap Tong Fa in respect of a cheque in a similar amount given to Link Jewellery which was dishonoured.

Receipt `B` read as follows:

Received from Mr YR Jumabhoy

The sum of: Nine thousand two hundred and sixty nine ($9,269.00).

Payment made for Yap Tong Fa in respect of charges due and payable to Wong Yiu Kong for work done and services rendered in respect of the repair of a diamond and gold necklace handed to Wong Yiu Kong by Miss V Cary on 5 August 1986 and which sum is to be released to Wong Yiu Kong forthwith, against return also of a dishonoured cheque given to Wong Yiu Kong.

Dated this 12th day of August 1986.

Signed: Eng Leong & Partners

I, Y R Jumabhoy hereby acknowledge receipt of the necklace as aforesaid in good order and condition. I am in full agreement with the abovesaid terms.

Dated this 12th day of August 1986.

Signed: YR Jumabhoy

The telex read as follows:

I wish to place the following on record before I commence necessary action:

(1) I have just returned from your office after signing and receiving a form of `receipt` which you made me sign to enable me to obtain the return of a gold and diamond necklace belonging to my family left with your client Wong Yiu Kong for repair and retained by him unlawfully.

(2) The said `receipt` is false in material particulars and was only signed by me under duress after you refused to accept the receipt drawn up by myself. Accordingly the same is repudiated.

(3) I regard this as a clear case of extortion in that you have obtained the sum of $9,269 from me in cash in exchange for the said necklace on a debt allegedly due to Wong from some one else. Will you return the said sum of $9,269 to me forthwith.

(4) I shall also report your conduct to the Law Society.

Teo had on receipt of the plaintiff`s telex immediately telexed a reply to the plaintiff and copied the same to the Law Society. Teo`s telex gave a somewhat different account of what had happened the day before and at the meeting of 12 August 1986. The relevant paragraphs are as follows:

(1) On 11 August, I re`cd a tel call fm u informing me that u wuld be coming to my office at 2.30pm the next day to obtain the return of the necklace. I reiterated that my firm was and never had been in possession of the necklace n that Mr Wong Yiu Kong was not in S`pore. Notwithstanding that, u insisted on coming to my office n u also wanted me to arrange for Mr Wong`s representative in S`pore to be present. U also gave me the understanding that u wuld be coming to my office with a sum of $9,269.00 to be given in exchange for the return of the necklace.

(2) At 2.20pm you and a European lady who was introduced by u to me as one Miss V Cary arrived at our office. At the outset, u informed me that u had brought a cash sum of $9,269. You then placed an envelope on my table. You then told me that the envelope contained cash.

(3) Miss V Cary told me in your presence that one Mr Choo wuld also be coming for the meeting. I then told you that Mr Wong`s representative, one Mr Tham wuld be coming for the meeting. We waited until Mr Choo and Mr Tham stepped into my office.

(4) When Mr Tham and Mr Choo were ushered into my room, you immediately told Mr Tham that you had brought the cash sum of $9,269.00 and demanded the return of the necklace. Mr Tham then told you that the necklace was not with him but was then kept in a safe box. He told u that he would go and get it for you. Mr Tham n Mr Choo then left my office.

(5) When Mr Tham and Mr Choo left my office, you handed me a note purporting to be a draft receipt which was to be signed by the recipient of the cash sum of $9,269. Upon reading it, I immediately told you that the draft was not acceptable. I then prepared a draft for your perusal. You could not agree to my draft terms. We then launched into a debate as to how the receipt should be worded. All these while, Mr Ranjeet Singh, our learned brother at law, was present.

(6) When we still culd not come to an agreement on the terms of the receipt, u suggested that the necklace and the cash sum of $9,269 be placed with the court n so that the matter be interpleaded. I was in full agreement with this suggestion as that was the fairest way the issue could be resolved.

(7) Eventually, you retracted your very own suggestion of the matter being interpleaded, u then proceeded to make your own amendments to my draft which were accepted by me. I have in my file a copy of the draft with your amendments made in yr own handwriting.

(8) Mr Tham then came back to my office and handed to you the necklace. The receipt (in duplicate) described as a memorandum was duly signed by yourself n myself on behalf of my firm.

The complaint was duly sent to the Inquiry Committee for investigation. On 15 December 1986, the Inquiry Committee completed its investigation and concluded that a formal investigation was not required. The Council accepted the recommendation of the Inquiry Committee that the complaint be dismissed and accordingly informed the complainant on 2 January 1987. On 14 January...