Law Society v Lim Cheong Peng: Professional Misconduct & False Attestation of Bills of Sale
The Law Society of Singapore applied under s 98 of the Legal Profession Act for Mr. Lim Cheong Peng, an advocate and solicitor, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83 of the Act for grossly improper conduct. The complaint stemmed from allegations by Mdm Lim Tok Wah and Mr. Lim Then Hock that Mr. Lim Cheong Peng falsely attested that bills of sale and guarantees had been executed by them in his presence when they were not. The High Court, comprising Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Tan Lee Meng J, found that there was insufficient evidence for the Disciplinary Committee to hold that the charges against the respondent had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed; no order made on the application.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Law Society brought a case against Lim Cheong Peng for falsely attesting bills of sale. The High Court found insufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Applicant | Statutory Board | Application Dismissed | Lost | Jimmy Yap |
| Lim Cheong Peng | Respondent | Individual | No order made on the application | Won | C R Rajah, Gregory Vijayendran, Chua Sui Tong |
| Lim Tok Wah | Other | Individual | |||
| Lim Then Hock | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jimmy Yap | Jimmy Yap & Co |
| C R Rajah | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Gregory Vijayendran | Wong Partnership |
| Chua Sui Tong | Wong Partnership |
4. Facts
- The Law Society received a complaint against Mr. Lim Cheong Peng for falsely attesting bills of sale.
- Mdm Lim and Mr. Lim claimed Mr. Lim Cheong Peng was not present when they signed bills of sale and guarantees.
- Mr. Lim Cheong Peng had a standing arrangement with TTL Leasing to attest bills of sale.
- Disputes arose between Mdm Lim and TTL Leasing over COE charges.
- The Disciplinary Committee found Mr. Lim Cheong Peng guilty of grossly improper conduct.
- The High Court found inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence.
- The High Court found the evidence of the complainants' witness to be unreliable.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Lim Cheong Peng, OS 672/2006, SUM 1808/2006, [2006] SGHC 145
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mdm Lim required a loan to pay for the renewal of Certificates of Entitlement. | |
| Mdm Lim approached Tai Thong Lee Trading (Pte) Ltd for a loan. | |
| From June to August, Mdm Lim borrowed a total sum of $279,888. | |
| TTL Leasing seized Mdm Lim’s vehicles after she failed to effect instalment payments on time. | |
| Complainants' lawyers sent a letter to TTL Leasing claiming the respondent was not present when the bills of sale were executed. | |
| The complainants barged into the respondent’s office to question him. | |
| The complainants wrote to the Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore. | |
| The complainants wrote their first letter to the Law Society. | |
| The complainants lodged a complaint against the respondent. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the respondent guilty of grossly improper conduct.
- Category: Substantive
- False Attestation
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to prove the respondent falsely attested to the execution of bills of sale.
- Category: Substantive
- Evidentiary Standard
- Outcome: The court reiterated that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1978–1979] SLR 240
8. Remedies Sought
- Disciplinary Action
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re an Advocate and Solicitor | N/A | Yes | [1978–1979] SLR 240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the degree of proof required in disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act is the same as in criminal cases. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly reached against the weight of the evidence. |
| Yap Giau Beng Terence v PP | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is just as competent as the court below in drawing inferences of fact. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) | Singapore |
| Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act (Chapter 161) | Singapore |
| Section 98 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Bills of Sale Act (Cap 24, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 10 of the Bills of Sale Act (Cap 24, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bills of Sale
- Attestation
- Grossly Improper Conduct
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Committee
- Standard Operating Procedure
- Certificates of Entitlement
- Guarantees
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Lim Cheong Peng
- Professional Misconduct
- Bills of Sale
- False Attestation
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Professional Conduct
- Bills of Sale