Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore: Intervention in Legal Profession Complaint
In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether two solicitors, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar, had the right to intervene in an application by Wee Soon Kim Anthony, who was dissatisfied with the Law Society's decision regarding his complaint against the solicitors. The court allowed the appeal, holding that the solicitors' intervention was not warranted under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the right of two solicitors to intervene in a complaint against them. The court held intervention was not warranted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Davinder Singh SC | Other | Individual | Intervention Denied | Lost | |
| Hri Kumar | Other | Individual | Intervention Denied | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yang Lih Shying | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| Siraj Omar | Drew & Napier |
| Yim Wing Kuan Jimmy | Drew & Napier |
4. Facts
- Mr. Wee complained to the Law Society against two solicitors, Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar.
- The complaint related to the preparation of affidavits for clients in relation to judicial proceedings.
- The Council of the Law Society decided that the letter of complaint disclosed no information of misconduct.
- Mr. Wee commenced OS 37/2000 seeking a declaration that the Council should have referred the letter of complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel.
- An inquiry committee was constituted to investigate into the fourth alleged falsehood.
- The IC submitted its report and recommended that it be dismissed.
- Mr Wee applied, by way of OS 1573/2000, to a judge for an order compelling the Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a DC to investigate that complaint.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore (No 3), CA 600018/2001, [2001] SGCA 54
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Complaint filed by Mr. Wee to the Law Society against Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar. | |
| Mr. Wee commenced OS 37/2000 seeking a declaration that the Council should have referred the letter of complaint to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. | |
| An inquiry committee was constituted to investigate into the fourth alleged falsehood. | |
| IC submitted its report and recommended that it be dismissed. | |
| Mr Wee applied, by way of OS 1573/2000, to a judge for an order compelling the Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a DC to investigate that complaint. | |
| The court allowed the appeal, directing that the complaint relating to the other three alleged falsehoods be also referred to the Chairman of the Inquiry Panel. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Right to Intervene
- Outcome: The court held that the two solicitors did not have the right to intervene under Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court or the court's inherent jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules of Court
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court
8. Remedies Sought
- Order compelling the Law Society to appoint a disciplinary committee to investigate the complaint
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 145 | Singapore | The court referred to this case in relation to the other three alleged falsehoods in the letter of complaint alluded to in [para ]3 above, and which was dismissed by the High Court. |
| Pegang Mining Co v Choong Sam | Privy Council | Yes | [1969] 2 MLJ 52 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court should prevent injustice to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment. |
| Gurtner v Circuit | N/A | Yes | [1968] 2 QB 587 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a third person whose legal rights or pocket will be directly affected by the determination of a dispute may be added as a party. |
| Subbiah Pillai v Wong Meng Meng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 544 | Singapore | Cited for the nature of the inquiry before the Inquiry Committee. |
| The Mardina Merchant | N/A | Yes | [1974] 3 All ER 749 | England | Cited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to allow a party to intervene if the effect of an arrest is to cause that party serious hardship or difficulty or danger. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b) Rules of Court |
| Order 92 Rule 4 Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intervention
- Disciplinary Committee
- Inquiry Committee
- Legal Profession Act
- Rules of Court
- Inherent Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession
- Intervention
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Legal Profession | 80 |
| Rights of Advocates and Solicitors | 70 |
| Intervention | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Judicial Review