Law Society v Yap Shao Sin Philip: Advocate Struck Off Roll for Criminal Breach of Trust
In Law Society of Singapore v Yap Shao Sin Philip, the High Court of Singapore ordered Philip Yap Shao Sin to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors due to his conviction for criminal breach of trust. The Law Society applied to make absolute an order to show cause, and the court, delivering its judgment on 2004-11-09, granted the application, citing the respondent's dishonesty and violation of trust as a solicitor.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Advocate Philip Yap Shao Sin was struck off the roll for criminal breach of trust, violating the trust placed in him as a solicitor.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Association | Application granted | Won | Leslie Phua Oei Heong |
| Yap Shao Sin Philip | Respondent | Individual | Struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leslie Phua Oei Heong | Phua Wai Partnership |
4. Facts
- The respondent was an advocate and solicitor practising as a sole proprietor.
- The victim entrusted the respondent with $31,200.52 for the purchase of an apartment.
- The respondent used $19,232 of the entrusted funds for his personal expenses.
- The respondent was charged with criminal breach of trust under s 409 of the Penal Code.
- The respondent pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.
- The Law Society applied to make absolute an order to show cause why the respondent should not be dealt with under s 83(1) of the Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Yap Shao Sin Philip, OS 965/2004, [2004] SGHC 252
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim Jew Kann and Lim Hong Min decided to purchase a private apartment. | |
| Lim Jew Kann and Lim Hong Min applied to the Overseas Union Bank for a loan. | |
| Lim Jew Kann and Lim Hong Min were recommended to appoint the respondent as their solicitor. | |
| Lim Hong Min executed a purchase agreement with LKN Development Pte Ltd. | |
| The respondent asked for the sum of $31,200.52 from Lim Hong Min. | |
| Respondent committed criminal breach of trust. | |
| Respondent committed criminal breach of trust. | |
| Lim Hong Min received documents relating to his purchase of the apartment and a note from the respondent stating that the respondent had ceased acting for the victim. | |
| Lim Hong Min received a letter from the developer stating that they had yet to receive the stamp fees from the respondent amounting to $19,232. | |
| The complainant lodged a police report. | |
| The respondent pleaded guilty in a district court to the charge. | |
| The respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment. | |
| The High Court granted the Law Society’s application to make the show cause order absolute. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The respondent was convicted of criminal breach of trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The respondent was found unfit for his profession and ordered to be struck off the roll.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to show cause why the respondent should not be struck off the roll
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Junaini bin Manin | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 200 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must accept the respondent’s conviction as final and conclusive and for the principle that where a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty, the court has almost invariably chosen to strike a solicitor off the roll. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Loh Wai Mun Daniel | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 261 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must accept the respondent’s conviction as final and conclusive and for the principle that where a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty, the court has almost invariably chosen to strike a solicitor off the roll. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Wee Wei Fen | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 234 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the sole question for the court’s determination is what consequences should flow from the fact that the respondent had committed the offences for which he was convicted. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 51 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact that the respondent was convicted of an offence involving dishonesty committed in his capacity as advocate and solicitor was, in itself, sufficient for the court to determine that due cause had been shown under s 83(2)(a). |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra Samuel | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 696 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a solicitor has been convicted of a criminal offence involving fraud or dishonesty, the court has almost invariably chosen to strike a solicitor off the roll. |
| Re Mohomed Jiffry Muljee | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 520 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that dishonest act committed in the capacity of an advocate and solicitor, and deserved to be dealt with accordingly. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that dishonest act committed in the capacity of an advocate and solicitor, and deserved to be dealt with accordingly and for the principle that where a case involves an offender of proven dishonesty, the weight to be attached to a plea in mitigation is negligible and a striking off will be the consequence as a matter of course. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Caleb Charles James | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 256 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in cases of proven dishonesty, mitigating factors do not tilt the balance towards the more lenient sanctions of suspension or of censure except where they are consistent with the objectives of preserving the good name of the legal profession and of the protection of the public. |
| Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 531 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in cases of proven dishonesty, mitigating factors do not tilt the balance towards the more lenient sanctions of suspension or of censure except where they are consistent with the objectives of preserving the good name of the legal profession and of the protection of the public. |
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
- Criminal breach of trust
- Show cause order
- Advocate and solicitor
- Professional misconduct
- Dishonesty
- Mitigating factors
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Yap Shao Sin Philip
- Criminal breach of trust
- Advocate
- Solicitor
- Struck off roll
- Singapore
- Legal Profession Act
- Penal Code
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Criminal Law