Shankar Alan Kulkarni v Law Society: Disciplinary Proceedings & Apparent Bias

In Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni's case against the Law Society of Singapore, the High Court reviewed disciplinary proceedings against Kulkarni, a solicitor. Kulkarni sought to quash the Disciplinary Committee's findings, alleging apparent bias and an unfair process. The court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon JC, granted the quashing order, finding that the Disciplinary Committee's conduct gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias and that the committee assumed an inquisitorial role, impairing its ability to fairly evaluate the evidence. The court found that the Disciplinary Committee failed to discharge its judicial function.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for quashing order granted.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings against Shankar Alan Kulkarni. The court quashed the findings due to apparent bias and the Disciplinary Committee's inquisitorial role.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardApplication for quashing order grantedLost
Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniApplicantIndividualApplication for quashing order grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Daniel KohRajah & Tann
Jimmy YimDrew & Napier LLC
Adeline WongDrew & Napier LLC
R S BajwaBajwa & Co
Mahmood GaznaviMahmood Gaznavi & Partners
Alan ShankarAlan Shankar & Lim

4. Facts

  1. The applicant, a solicitor, was convicted by a disciplinary tribunal.
  2. The complainants alleged the applicant acted improperly in loan transactions.
  3. The Disciplinary Committee (DC) found the applicant guilty of grossly improper conduct.
  4. The applicant sought a quashing order, alleging bias and unfair process.
  5. The DC initiated a line of inquiry regarding the encashment of cheques.
  6. The DC questioned Citibank witnesses extensively on banking practices.
  7. The DC concluded it was highly likely Chiang cashed the cheques, contrary to the Citibank witnesses' evidence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, OS 668/2006, [2006] SGHC 194
  2. Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, , [2006] SGDSC 1

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Complainants introduced to applicant.
Complainants attended applicant’s office.
Mdm Mislia approached Khoo for further loans.
Mdm Mislia approached Khoo for further loans.
Complainants made a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore.
Inquiry Committee reported a prima facie case.
Disciplinary Committee heard evidence.
Disciplinary Committee heard evidence.
Disciplinary Committee reported findings.
Application for a quashing order argued.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Apparent Bias
    • Outcome: The court found that the Disciplinary Committee conducted itself in a manner that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Excessive intervention by disciplinary committee
      • Unequal treatment of witnesses
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 4 SLR 604
      • [1993] AC 646
      • [1924] 1 KB 256
      • [1969] 1 QB 577
      • [1994] 4 All ER 139
      • (2000) 201 CLR 488
      • (1993–1994) 181 CLR 41
      • [1992] 2 SLR 310
      • [1998] 1 SLR 97
      • [1986] SLT 244
      • [2000] 1 AC 119
      • [2002] SLT 988
  2. Standard of Proof
    • Outcome: The court declined to intervene on the ground that the Disciplinary Committee applied the wrong standard of proof.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1989] SLR 1129
  3. Inquisitorial Role
    • Outcome: The court found that the Disciplinary Committee failed to discharge its judicial function because it assumed an inquisitorial role.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1957] 2 QB 55
      • [2001] 2 SLR 421
      • [2006] EWCA (Civ) 281

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings

10. Practice Areas

  • Regulatory Law
  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Judicial Review

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
R v London Borough of BromleyEnglish Court of AppealYes[2002] 2 EWCA Civ 1113EnglandCited regarding alternative remedies in judicial review.
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v EvansHouse of LordsYes[1982] 1 WLR 1155EnglandCited regarding the court's concern in judicial review being with the process and legality of the decision.
Singapore Amateur Athletics Associations v Haron bin MundirCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR 47SingaporeCited regarding the court's concern in judicial review being with the process and legality of the decision.
Re Singh KalpanathHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR 639SingaporeCited to distinguish show cause proceedings from judicial review proceedings.
Wong Kok Chin v Singapore Society of AccountantsHigh CourtYes[1989] SLR 1129SingaporeCited regarding the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
Law Society of Singapore v Yahya SyedSingapore Disciplinary CommitteeYes[1997] SGDSC 4SingaporeCited regarding the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
Re an Advocate and SolicitorUnspecifiedYes[1978–1979] SLR 240SingaporeCited regarding the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings.
Leong Kum Fatt v AGUnspecifiedYes[1984–1985] SLR 367SingaporeCited regarding the scope of judicial review.
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation CommissionHouse of LordsYes[1969] 2 AC 147EnglandCited regarding the scope of judicial review.
Wong Kim Sang v AGUnspecifiedYes[1982–1983] SLR 219SingaporeCited regarding the scope of judicial review.
Mohan Singh v AGUnspecifiedYes[1987] SLR 398SingaporeCited regarding the scope of judicial review.
Mak Sik Kwong v Minister of Home Affairs, Malaysia (No 2)UnspecifiedYes[1975] 2 MLJ 175MalaysiaCited regarding the scope of judicial review.
Tang Kin Hwa v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners BoardHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR 604SingaporeCited to discuss the meaning of apparent bias and the tests to determine it.
Jagatheesan s/o Krishnasamy v PPHigh CourtYes[2006] 4 SLR 45SingaporeCited to define the expression 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Regina v GoughHouse of LordsYes[1993] AC 646EnglandCited to discuss the tests for apparent bias, but not followed in Singapore.
The King v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthyUnspecifiedYes[1924] 1 KB 256EnglandCited for the principle that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done.
Regina v Barnsley Licensing Justices, Ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers’ AssociationUnspecifiedYes[1960] 2 QB 167EnglandCited regarding the insidious nature of bias.
Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v LannonUnspecifiedYes[1969] 1 QB 577EnglandCited regarding the importance of the impression given to other people in determining bias.
R v Inner West London Coroner, ex parte DallaglioUnspecifiedYes[1994] 4 All ER 139EnglandCited to highlight that the inquiry should not be limited to whether the court thinks that there was in fact a sufficient possibility that the tribunal was biased but rather should be directed at whether a reasonable man might think it so.
Johnson v JohnsonHigh Court of AustraliaYes(2000) 201 CLR 488AustraliaCited to support the view that the inquiry should be directed from the perspective of a reasonable member of the public.
Webb v The QueenHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1993–1994) 181 CLR 41AustraliaCited to highlight the problem of comparing the perspective of the public with that of the reviewing court.
Regina v Camborne Justices, Ex parte PearceUnspecifiedYes[1955] 1 QB 41EnglandCited to distinguish from Sussex Justices.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 310SingaporeCited to establish that the 'reasonable suspicion' test is the law in Singapore.
R v Liverpool City Justices, ex p ToppingUnspecifiedYes[1983] 1 All ER 490EnglandCited to support the 'reasonable suspicion' test.
R v Weston-super-Mare Justices, ex p ShawUnspecifiedYes[1987] 1 All ER 255EnglandCited to support the 'reasonable suspicion' test.
Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan YewCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR 97SingaporeCited to reaffirm that the 'reasonable suspicion' test is the law in Singapore.
Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd (No 2)High CourtYes[1988] SLR 532SingaporeCited to show application of the 'reasonable suspicion' test.
De Souza Lionel Jerome v AGHigh CourtYes[1993] 1 SLR 882SingaporeCited to show application of the 'reasonable suspicion' test.
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v CreasyHigh Court of AustraliaYesHot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy [2002] HCA 51AustraliaCited regarding different standards for administrative vs judicial decisions.
Bradford v McLeodHigh Court of JusticiaryYes[1986] SLT 244ScotlandCited regarding the interests of justice requiring circumstances not to create a suspicion of impartiality.
Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)UnspecifiedYes[2000] 1 AC 119EnglandCited regarding the appearance of independence and impartiality.
Millar v DicksonPrivy CouncilYes[2002] SLT 988ScotlandCited regarding the need to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.
Jones v National Coal BoardUnspecifiedYes[1957] 2 QB 55EnglandCited regarding the principle that a judge should not descend into the arena.
Yuill v YuillUnspecifiedYes[1945] P 15EnglandCited regarding the principle that a judge should not descend into the arena.
Roseli bin Amat v PPCourt of AppealYes[1989] SLR 55SingaporeCited regarding excessive interruptions by the trial judge.
Yap Chwee Khim v American Home Assurance CoCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 421SingaporeCited regarding the principle that a judge should not descend into the arena.
Galea v GaleaCourt of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South WalesYes(1990) 19 NSWLR 263AustraliaCited regarding guidelines for evaluating excessive intervention by the judge.
Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark v Kofi-AduEnglish Court of AppealYes[2006] EWCA (Civ) 281EnglandCited regarding the principle that a tribunal that assumes a quasi-inquisitorial role is acting at odds with the adversarial system.
Cairnstores Ltd v Aktiebolaget HessleEnglish Court of AppealYes[2003] FSR 413EnglandCited regarding the impression the court is left with after considering all the evidence and the circumstances.
CG v United KingdomEuropean Court of Human RightsYes(2002) EHRR 31EuropeCited regarding the assessment of whether the appellant had a fair trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83(2)(b)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed) s 167Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Apparent Bias
  • Disciplinary Committee
  • Judicial Review
  • Reasonable Suspicion
  • Inquisitorial Role
  • Rules of Natural Justice
  • Quashing Order
  • Priority Banking
  • Grossly Improper Conduct

15.2 Keywords

  • Disciplinary Proceedings
  • Apparent Bias
  • Judicial Review
  • Legal Profession
  • Singapore
  • Solicitor
  • Law Society

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility90
Legal Profession Act85
Legal Ethics80
Professional Ethics80
Administrative Law75
Professional Misconduct70
Duty of Candour60

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Regulatory Law