Tan Yeow Khoon v Law Society: Misleading the Court & Solicitor's Duty

Tan Yeow Khoon and Tan Yeow Lam applied to the High Court of Singapore for an order directing the Law Society of Singapore to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee to hear charges of misconduct against Anthony Lee. The complainants alleged that Anthony Lee misled the court. The High Court dismissed the application, finding that the Inquiry Committee's decision was sound and that Anthony Lee had not acted improperly. The complainants appealed the decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to order Law Society to apply to Chief Justice for appointment of a disciplinary committee was dismissed. The court addressed misleading the court and solicitor's duty.

1.7 Decision Date

6 June 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Yeow Khoon	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Edmond Pereira, Wee Egk Chong
The Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Association	Application dismissed	Won	Daniel John
Tan Yeow Lam	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Edmond Pereira, Wee Egk Chong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Rajendran	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Edmond Pereira	Edmond Pereira & Partners
Wee Egk Chong	Edmond Pereira & Partners
Daniel John	John Tan & Chan

4. Facts

Complainants alleged Anthony Lee misled the court by suppressing the fact that he had valuation reports from Knight Frank.
Complainants alleged Anthony Lee misled the court by informing the court that he needed more time to instruct Knight Frank.
Complainants alleged Anthony Lee misled the court by putting forward his case on the basis that no settlement agreement had been reached.
Complainants alleged Anthony Lee misled the court by putting forward his case on the basis that there had been no part-performance by his client.
The Inquiry Committee refused to inquire into the complaint that Anthony Lee misled the court about the existence of the Knight Frank valuation reports.
The Council of the Law Society adopted the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee that the complaints be dismissed.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Yeow Khoon and Another v The Law Society of Singapore, OS 879/2000, [2001] SGHC 129

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1995-11-17	Complainants and their siblings met to resolve differences.
1995-11-24	Complainants and their siblings met to resolve differences.
1995-11-28	Anthony Lee wrote a letter confirming the agreement.
1995-12-07	Further meeting held to discuss adjustments.
1995-12-14	Bih Li & Lee wrote to Knight Frank requesting a quotation.
1995-12-18	Bih Li & Lee accepted Knight Frank's quotation.
1996-01-01	Letters exchanged between Lee Bon Leong & Co and Bih Li & Lee regarding valuation reports.
1996-03-01	Letters exchanged between Lee Bon Leong & Co and Bih Li & Lee regarding valuation reports.
1996-03-14	Bih Li & Lee responded that they did not have a copy of the valuation report.
1996-05-05	Michael Khoo & Partners requested information about the valuation.
1996-06-10	Michael Khoo & Partners gave notice of commencing legal proceedings.
1996-07-26	Originating summonses were instituted by the complainants.
1996-12-11	TYT filed an affidavit denying a binding agreement.
1997-08-01	Hearing of originating summonses before Rubin J began.
1998-02-21	Rubin J held that the letter constituted a binding agreement.
1998-02-23	Bih Li & Lee sent valuation reports to Michael Khoo & Partners.
1998-04-23	Bih Li & Lee sent valuation reports to Michael Khoo & Partners.
1998-07-03	Hearing before Rubin J on the question of costs.
1998-07-09	Bih Li & Lee wrote to the Registrar regarding allegations made by Lee Mun Hooi.
1998-07-30	TYK lodged a formal complaint with the Law Society.
1998-08-07	TYL lodged a similar complaint.
1999-10-09	Anthony Lee successfully applied to have the claim struck out.
2000-04-04	Hearing of the complaints before the Inquiry Committee.
2000-04-06	TYL wrote to the Inquiry Committee requesting Anthony Lee's written submission.
2000-04-11	Inquiry Committee replied that it was not its practice to release the respondent's written explanation.
2000-04-14	Inquiry Committee forwarded its report recommending dismissal of the complaints.
2000-04-24	TYL wrote a letter to the Inquiry Committee with enclosures.
2000-05-02	TYL wrote to the Inquiry Committee pointing out discrepancies.
2000-05-03	Inquiry Committee replied that it was functus officio.
2000-05-30	Complainants were informed that the Council had accepted the recommendations of the Inquiry Committee.
2000-06-07	TYL wrote to the Law Society requesting the Inquiry Committee's report and Anthony Lee's written explanation.
2000-06-08	Law Society furnished a copy of the report and Anthony Lee's written explanation.
2000-06-09	TYL wrote to the Law Society requesting reasons for dismissal.
2000-06-12	Law Society responded to TYL's query.
2000-06-13	Complainants commenced proceedings under s 96.
2000-10-25	TYK filed a lengthy affidavit.
2001-02-13	Counsel for the complainants filed Skeletal Arguments.
2001-06-07	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Misleading the court
- Outcome: The court found that Anthony Lee had not intentionally misled the court.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Suppression of evidence
  - False representation
Breach of duty to client
- Outcome: The court found that Anthony Lee was acting as his client's mouthpiece and fulfilling his duty to argue his client's case.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to act in client's best interest
  - Conflict of interest
Right to fair hearing
- Outcome: The court determined that the complainants were not entitled to a right of hearing at Inquiry Committee proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Right to cross-examine witnesses
  - Access to information

8. Remedies Sought

Order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee

9. Cause of Actions

Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Seet Melvin v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR 323	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a complainant is not generally entitled to a right of hearing at Inquiry Committee proceedings and that the process is inquisitorial, not adversarial.
Yusuf Jumabhoy v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1988] SLR 236	Singapore	Cited regarding the procedure for the conduct of inquiry and the complainant's right to a hearing.
Yusuf Jumabhoy v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1988] 1 MLJ 491	N/A	Cited regarding the procedure for the conduct of inquiry and the complainant's right to a hearing.
Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chow Wang	N/A	Yes	[1975] 1 MLJ 59	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the requirements of natural justice depend on the particular circumstances of each case.
Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 476	Singapore	Cited for the role of the Inquiry Committee to investigate the complaint and consider whether there is a prima facie case for formal investigation.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1988] SLR 510	Singapore	Cited regarding the statutory scheme giving the advocate a right to be judged first by his peers.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1988] 3 MLJ 9	N/A	Cited regarding the statutory scheme giving the advocate a right to be judged first by his peers.
Re An Advocate & Solicitor	N/A	Yes	[1987] 2 MLJ 21	N/A	Cited as an example of remedies against a defaulting inquiry committee or Council.
P Suppiah v Law Society of Singapore	N/A	Yes	[1986] 1 MLJ 459	N/A	Cited as an example of remedies against a defaulting inquiry committee or Council.
Whitehouse Holdings v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 476	Singapore	Cited regarding the Council's determination and acceptance of the Inquiry Committee's report.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed)	Singapore
s 96(1) Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2000 Ed)	Singapore
s 86(8) Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 87(1)(d) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Inquiry Committee
Law Society
Misleading the court
Professional misconduct
Duty of solicitor
Part-performance
Valuation reports
Binding agreement

15.2 Keywords

Legal Profession
Professional Conduct
Misleading the Court
Law Society
Singapore

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Legal Profession
Professional Conduct