Ling Uk Choon v Public Accountants Board: Appeal Against Censure for Improper Conduct
Ling Uk Choon and Ling Ing Hea Grace, certified public accountants, appealed to the High Court against the Public Accountants Board's decision to censure them for improper conduct. The Board's decision arose from a complaint by their client, Ryoma Steel Enterprise (S) Pte Ltd, regarding the appellants' refusal to return Ryoma's documents. The High Court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, allowed the appeal, setting aside the Board's order, including the order on costs and expenses.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Accountants Ling Uk Choon and Ling Ing Hea Grace appeal against the Public Accountants Board's censure for refusing to return client documents.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling Uk Choon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won | |
| Ling Ing Hea Grace | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Won | |
| Public Accountants Board | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Ryoma Steel Enterprise (S) Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Quek Mong Hua | Lee and Lee |
| Mervyn Foo | Lee and Lee |
| Devinder K Rai | ACIES Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The appellants, Ling Uk Choon and Ling Ing Hea Grace, are certified public accountants.
- Ryoma Steel Enterprise (S) Pte Ltd appointed the Firm as its auditors and tax agents.
- Ryoma requested the return of documents for a goods and services tax inspection.
- The appellants noted differences and irregularities in the returned set of accounts.
- Ryoma requested assistance in making voluntary disclosures to relevant authorities.
- The appellants refused to release the documents due to concerns about irregularities.
- Ryoma's solicitors demanded the return of documents, but the appellants refused.
- The appellants eventually disclosed irregularities to the Commercial Affairs Department and IRAS.
- Two directors of Ryoma were charged with offences under s 477A of the Penal Code for falsification of accounts.
5. Formal Citations
- Ling Uk Choon and Another v Public Accountants Board, OM 32/2003, [2004] SGHC 127
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Ling retired from the Singapore Income Tax Department. | |
| Mr. Ling started practicing as a public accountant. | |
| Ryoma appointed the Firm as its auditors and Singapore tax agents. | |
| Ryoma furnished its set of accounts and related documents. | |
| Ryoma requested the return of the documents for a goods and services tax inspection. | |
| Ryoma collected the documents in early July 1999. | |
| Grace Chong, an employee of Ryoma, called to discuss irregularities. | |
| Ryoma requested assistance in making voluntary disclosures. | |
| Ryoma's solicitors demanded the return of all documents. | |
| The appellants refused to release the documents. | |
| Moey & Yuen sent a letter to terminate the Firm as Ryoma’s auditors. | |
| A letter was sent to terminate the Firm’s appointment as Ryoma’s tax agent. | |
| Moey & Yuen sent another letter requiring the release of Ryoma’s documents. | |
| Moey & Yuen wrote to the Board about the complaint. | |
| The appellants replied to the Board. | |
| Ryoma filed a writ of summons against the appellants. | |
| Solicitors attended a court dispute resolution session. | |
| The appellants’ solicitors wrote to Moey & Yuen seeking Ryoma’s answers. | |
| The appellants wrote to the Commercial Affairs Department setting out some irregularities. | |
| The appellants were informed that an Inquiry Committee was constituted. | |
| The appellants appeared before the Inquiry Committee. | |
| Lee & Lee provided a legal opinion. | |
| The two directors pleaded guilty and were fined. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Improper Conduct
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants' conduct in retaining Ryoma's documents was improper.
- Category: Substantive
- Duty to Disclose vs. Right to Retain Documents
- Outcome: The court held that a duty to disclose does not automatically grant the right to retain documents, especially when the owner demands their return.
- Category: Substantive
- Bringing Profession into Disrepute
- Outcome: The court found that the Board did not adequately address whether the appellants' improper conduct would bring the profession of public accountancy into disrepute, and the court itself did not see how the conduct would do so.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Accounting
- Auditing
11. Industries
- Accounting
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants | High Court | Yes | [1988] SLR 999 | Singapore | Cited regarding the procedure governing appeals to the High Court and the nature of a rehearing. |
| Fox v General Medical Council | N/A | Yes | [1960] 1 WLR 1017 | N/A | Cited regarding the court's role in a statutory appeal and the precedence given to the tribunal's decision. |
| Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of Accountants | N/A | Yes | [1989] SLR 1129 | Singapore | Cited regarding the consideration of circumstances in assessing a public accountant's conduct. |
| O’Connell v Palmer | N/A | Yes | (1994) 53 FCR 429 | Australia | Cited for the definition of 'improper conduct'. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | N/A | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | N/A | Cited for the definition of 'improper'. |
| Mercer v Pharmacy Board of Victoria | N/A | Yes | [1968] VR 72 | Australia | Cited regarding conduct discreditable to a professional. |
| Davies v Davies | N/A | Yes | [1960] 1 WLR 1004 | N/A | Cited regarding the absence of misconduct in the absence of a clear practice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 55 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 55 r 2 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 55 r 5(3) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Accountants Act (Cap 2, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Accountants Act (Cap 212, 1970 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Accountants Act (Cap 2A, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Goods and Services Tax Act (Cap 117A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Improper conduct
- Public accountant
- Duty to disclose
- Right to retain documents
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Inquiry Committee
- Censure
- Irregularities
- Voluntary disclosures
15.2 Keywords
- accountant
- public accountants board
- improper conduct
- disciplinary action
- accountant client privilege
- accountant ethics
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Professional conduct | 90 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 80 |
| Accountancy Law | 75 |
| Administrative Law | 50 |
| Corporate Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Accounting Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Accountant-Client Relationship