Law Society of Singapore v Sarjit Singh: Show Cause Action for Criminal Breach of Trust
In Law Society of Singapore v Sarjit Singh, the High Court of Singapore granted the Law Society's application to make absolute an order to show cause, ordering Sarjit Singh to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. The decision was based on Singh's conviction for criminal breach of trust, which the court deemed sufficient cause under the Legal Profession Act. The court found Singh's actions demonstrated a lack of integrity and unfitness for the legal profession.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted; respondent struck 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
Sarjit Singh, an advocate and solicitor, was struck off the roll for criminal breach of trust. The Law Society's application to show cause was granted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Granted | Won | |
| Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh | 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 |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Zaheer K Merchant | Madhavan Partnership |
4. Facts
- The respondent was engaged by Latiff to recover outstanding salary from Eurofibre.
- Eurofibre issued a cheque for the outstanding salary to Sarjit Singh & Co.
- The respondent did not inform Latiff about the cheque.
- The respondent advised Latiff to take out a writ of summons against Eurofibre and charged him $500.
- The respondent faxed Latiff a copy of a writ with a forged signature.
- The respondent deposited the cheque into his firm’s account and used it for his own purposes.
- The respondent was charged with criminal breach of trust as an agent under s 409 of the Penal Code.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Sarjit Singh s/o Mehar Singh, OS 1514/2003, [2004] SGHC 51
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent called to the Bar. | |
| Respondent engaged by Muhammed bin Haji Abdul Latiff to recover outstanding salary. | |
| Eurofibre Engineering Pte Ltd issued a cheque to Sarjit Singh & Co. | |
| High Court dismissed respondent's petition for criminal revision and enhanced the sentence. | |
| First hearing for the Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause. | |
| High Court granted the Law Society's application and ordered the respondent to be struck off the roll. |
7. Legal Issues
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The respondent was convicted of criminal breach of trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Fitness to Practice Law
- Outcome: The court found the respondent unfit to practice law due to his criminal conviction and ordered him to be struck off the roll.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 2 SLR 184
- [1994] 3 SLR 520
- [2004] SGHC 36
- [1999] 4 SLR 168
- [1994] 3 SLR 531
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking off from the roll of advocates and solicitors
9. Cause of Actions
- Criminal Breach of Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Conduct
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore v Narmal Singh | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 184 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the respondent’s conviction must be accepted as final and conclusive. |
| Re Mohomed Jiffry Muljee | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 520 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the respondent’s conviction must be accepted as final and conclusive. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Loh Wai Mun Daniel | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 36 | Singapore | Cited to support the determination that due cause had been shown given the offence was one of dishonesty committed in his capacity as advocate and solicitor. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 168 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that in a case involving an advocate and solicitor of proven dishonesty, the weight to be attached to a plea of mitigation is virtually negligible and a striking off would be a matter of course. |
| Re Knight Glenn Jeyasingam | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 531 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that in a case involving an advocate and solicitor of proven dishonesty, the weight to be attached to a plea of mitigation is virtually negligible and a striking off would be a matter of course. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 409 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Criminal breach of trust
- Show cause
- Legal Profession Act
- Advocate and solicitor
- Dishonesty
- Integrity
- Unfit for profession
- Striking off
- Forged signature
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Sarjit Singh
- Criminal Breach of Trust
- Legal Profession Act
- Singapore
- Show Cause
- Striking Off
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Show cause action | 70 |
| Professional Misconduct | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
| Criminal Procedure | 50 |
| Duty of Candour | 40 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Professional Misconduct
- Criminal Law
- Legal Ethics