Law Society of Singapore v Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu: Show Cause Action for Forgery and Misapplication of Clients' Monies

In Law Society of Singapore v Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, the High Court of Singapore, comprising Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Judith Prakash J, granted the Law Society's application on April 24, 2006, to strike Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu off the roll of advocates and solicitors. The decision was based on Thirunavukarasu's fraudulent activities, including forgery to mortgage clients' property for her own benefit and misapplication of clients' monies. The Law Society initiated the show cause action under the Legal Profession Act, leading to the court's order to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 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

The Law Society sought to strike Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu off the roll for using forgery and fraud to mortgage clients' property and misapplying clients' monies. The court granted the application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication GrantedWon
Sivakolunthu ThirunavukarasuRespondentIndividualStruck off the roll of advocates and solicitorsLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zaheer K MerchantMadhavan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The respondent was instructed to give effect to a settlement agreement between her clients and their brother.
  2. The respondent transferred a three-quarter share in the Senang Crescent property to herself.
  3. The respondent mortgaged her share in the Senang Crescent property to Malayan Banking Berhad.
  4. The respondent requested money from her clients for payment of stamp fees.
  5. The respondent misapplied the stamp fees towards the unauthorised discharge of liabilities.
  6. The Disciplinary Committee found overwhelming evidence against the respondent.
  7. The respondent offered to mortgage a property she owned to settle the matters.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu, OS 1909/2005, SUM 245/2006, [2006] SGHC 68

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent called to the Bar.
Settlement Agreement made between the respondent’s clients and their brother, Sim Thian Oh.
Title deeds to six of the seven properties in STO’s name were delivered to the respondent.
Clients sent $13,106 as requested by way of a cheque made out in favour of “Commissioner of Stamp Duties”.
Statutory demands from STO’s lawyers were served on SST and SAB.
SCL received the Singapore Land Authority’s written notification of the bank’s caveat.
Police report made.
Respondent wrote to SAB informing him that a redemption notice had been given to Maybank.
Application granted; respondent ordered to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Professional Misconduct
    • Outcome: The court found the respondent guilty of professional misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Forgery
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent had forged signatures of her clients.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Misapplication of Clients' Monies
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondent had misapplied clients' monies.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Striking off from the roll of advocates and solicitors

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of trust
  • Professional misconduct
  • Fraud

10. Practice Areas

  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Law Society of Singapore v Ravindra SamuelHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR 696SingaporeCited regarding the court's considerations when exercising jurisdiction under s 83(1) of the Legal Profession Act, including the protection of the public and the interests of the legal profession.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forgery
  • Misapplication of funds
  • Professional misconduct
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Show cause action
  • Breach of trust

15.2 Keywords

  • Law Society
  • Sivakolunthu Thirunavukarasu
  • Forgery
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Singapore
  • Advocate and Solicitor

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act95
Fraud and Deceit90
Forgery90
Breach of Trust80
Unjust Enrichment30
Fiduciary Duties30
Knowing Receipt30
Director's Liability30
Misappropriation30
Damages Assessment20
Company Law10
Reflective Loss Principle10
Contract Law10
Property Law10

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Law Society Proceedings