Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society: Application for Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam applied to the High Court of Singapore for reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors, having been struck off in 1994 following a conviction for abetting the intentional omission of a court appearance. The Law Society did not object, but the Attorney-General opposed the application. The court, led by Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to prove the applicant's reformed character and fitness to practice law.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application by Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam for reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of reformed character.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Neutral | Neutral | Cheryl Chia of State Counsel |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Cheryl Chia | State Counsel |
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk and Davidson |
| Koh Kia Jeng | Rodyk and Davidson |
4. Facts
- The applicant was struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors on 31 August 1994.
- The applicant was convicted of abetting Teo in intentionally omitting to attend court.
- The applicant pleaded guilty to the criminal charge and did not appeal the sentence.
- The Law Society commenced disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.
- The applicant worked as a legal officer and advisor after being struck off the roll.
- The Attorney-General opposed the application based on an incident at the Subordinate Courts.
- The applicant adduced letters from members of the Bar and the Red Cross in support of his application.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam, OM 15/2004, [2004] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant called as a barrister-at-law of England. | |
| Applicant admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore. | |
| Dr. Ramaswami agreed to provide medical certificates to the applicant’s clients. | |
| Teo In Hin obtained a medical certificate from Dr. Ramaswami and the applicant tendered it to the court. | |
| Disciplinary committee concluded that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action to be taken against the applicant. | |
| Applicant struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. | |
| Applicant left to work as an attaché with the law firm M Ravi & Co. | |
| Incident at the Subordinate Courts where the applicant addressed the district judge. | |
| Application for reinstatement was dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fitness for Reinstatement
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that he was now of such a reformed character that he could be relied upon to discharge the professional duties of an advocate and solicitor with honor and integrity.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement to the roll of advocates and solicitors
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Regulation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 608 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a significantly longer period than five years should pass before an applicant seeks reinstatement after being struck off the roll. |
| Re Ram Kishan | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's primary duty is to protect the interests of the public and the profession when considering reinstatement. |
| Re Lim Cheng Peng | High Court | Yes | [1987] SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the applicant had abused their authority as advocates and solicitors and exploited their clients. |
| Re Chan Chow Wang | High Court | Yes | [1982–1983] SLR 413 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sentences of exclusion from the legal profession need not be exclusive forever. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Reinstatement
- Roll of advocates and solicitors
- Fitness to practice
- Defect of character
- Legal Profession Act
15.2 Keywords
- reinstatement
- advocate
- solicitor
- legal profession
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Professional Discipline | 40 |
| Criminal Law | 30 |
| Civil Litigation | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure