Re Lim Kiap Khee: Breach of Undertaking and Misconduct by Advocate and Solicitor

In Re Lim Kiap Khee, the High Court of Singapore ordered Lim Kiap Khee, an advocate and solicitor, to be struck off the roll due to multiple instances of misconduct. These included breaching an undertaking to Wearnes Development (Pte) Ltd regarding stakeholder moneys, failing to deposit said moneys into a client account as required by the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules, and generally acting in a manner unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The Law Society initiated the show-cause proceeding, and the court found Lim Kiap Khee guilty of grossly improper conduct and serious breaches of professional rules, warranting the striking-off order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Order to strike off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lawyer Lim Kiap Khee was struck off for breaching an undertaking to Wearnes Development, failing to deposit stakeholder moneys, and misconduct.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law SocietyApplicantAssociationOrder granted to strike off the roll of advocates and solicitorsWon
Lim Kiap KheeRespondentIndividualOrder to strike off the roll of advocates and solicitorsLost
Wearnes Development (Pte) LtdOtherCorporation

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
L P TheanJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Aziz TayabaliAziz Tayabali & Associates

4. Facts

  1. Lim Kiap Khee, an advocate and solicitor, was the sole proprietor of his legal firm.
  2. Wearnes Development (Pte) Ltd lodged a complaint against Lim for breaching an undertaking.
  3. Lim's firm undertook to hold $1,021,800 as stakeholders and release it to Wearnes.
  4. Lim failed to pay $628,800 within seven days of receiving the Certificate of Statutory Completion.
  5. Lim delayed payment of the 8% to Wearnes by almost two months.
  6. Lim failed to pay the last 5% of the purchase price by the due date.
  7. Wearnes instituted legal proceedings and obtained judgment against Lim's firm.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Lim Kiap Khee, OS 600376/2001, [2001] SGHC 160

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent was admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court
Wearnes sold the property at a public auction to Lum Kok Seng and Chin Leng Kee
Original purchasers sub-sold the property to Shyam Mangharam Ganglani
Wearnes gave notice to the original purchasers to take vacant possession of the property
Wearnes served a notice to complete on the original purchasers` solicitors
Respondent's firm gave a written undertaking to Wearnes
Sale of the property was completed in favour of the sub-purchaser
Certificate of Statutory Completion issued by the competent authority
Wearnes` solicitors forwarded the certificate of statutory completion to the respondent`s firm
Respondent`s firm paid out the 8% to Wearnes
Wearnes solicitors wrote to the respondent`s firm reminding the latter that payment of the 5% was due on 1 December 1995
Wearnes` Solicitors` letter to M/s Lim Kiap Khee & Co, stating that there are no outstanding defects which their clients are liable for
Wearnes instituted an originating summons to claim payment for the last 5% against both the sub-purchaser and the respondent
Court made suspension order against the respondent
Respondent ceased to practise law
High Court gave judgment in favour of Wearnes
Complaint lodged by Wearnes Development (Pte) Ltd against the respondent
Bankruptcy orders were made against the respondent and the sub-purchaser
Respondent made payment of $210,000 to Wearnes` solicitors
Disciplinary Committee heard the matter
Disciplinary Committee heard the matter
Disciplinary Committee heard the matter
Disciplinary Committee heard the matter
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Undertaking
    • Outcome: The court found the respondent in clear breach of the undertaking, constituting grossly improper conduct.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent's actions constituted misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Failure to Deposit Stakeholder Moneys into Client Account
    • Outcome: The court confirmed the DC's finding that the contravention of r 3 on the part of the respondent constituted a `serious breach` and held that he was guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking off from the roll of advocates and solicitors

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Undertaking
  • Professional Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Marshall DavidN/AYes[1972-1974] SLR 132SingaporeCited for the definition of 'grossly improper conduct' as conduct dishonourable to him as a man and dishonourable in his profession.
Re CookeN/AYes[1889] 5 TLR 407N/ACited for the principle that conduct supporting a negligence action is insufficient for grossly improper conduct.
Rajasooria v Disciplinary CommitteePrivy CouncilYes[1955] 1 WLR 405N/ACited for the principle that intention to deceive is not always an essential element in grossly improper conduct.
Re Han Ngiap JuanN/AYes[1993] 2 SLR 81SingaporeCited for adopting the approach in Rajasooria that intention to deceive need not be an element of grossly improper conduct.
Re Seow Francis TN/AYes[1972-1974] SLR 469SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor's gross failure to honour his undertaking amounts to grossly improper conduct.
Re A SolicitorN/AYes[1936] 1 DLR 368CanadaCited to show that even gross negligence was held not to amount to professional misconduct in Canada.
Re MN/AYes[1930] NZLR 285New ZealandCited to show that the failure of the solicitor to have his trust accounts audited amounts to professional misconduct in New Zealand.
Re A SolicitorN/AYes[1972] 2 All ER 811N/ACited for the principle that negligence in a solicitor may amount to professional misconduct if it is inexcusable and is such as to be regarded as deplorable by his fellows in the profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingN/AYes[2000] 2 SLR 165SingaporeCited for the principle that once a misconduct constitutes grossly improper conduct, that act would, ipso facto, be an act unbefitting an advocate and solicitor under s 83(2)(h).
Law Society of Singapore v Prem SinghN/AYes[1999] 4 SLR 157SingaporeCited for the principle that Rule 3 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors` Accounts) Rules prescribes a mandatory requirement that the client`s funds be placed into a separate account to protect the public.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R 8, 1990 Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Undertaking
  • Stakeholder
  • Grossly Improper Conduct
  • Misconduct Unbefitting
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Solicitors' Accounts Rules
  • Certificate of Statutory Completion

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Advocate
  • Solicitor
  • Misconduct
  • Breach of Undertaking
  • Stakeholder
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Professional Ethics80
Solicitors' Undertakings75
Breach of Undertaking70
Show cause action60
Contempt of Court30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Disciplinary Proceedings