Re Shankar Alan: Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings After Quashing of Findings
In Re Shankar Alan, the High Court of Singapore, on 23 January 2007, addressed the issue of costs following the successful application by Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni to quash the findings of a Disciplinary Committee (DC) established under the Legal Profession Act. The court, presided over by Sundaresh Menon JC, ruled that the Law Society of Singapore, having opposed the application, was liable for the applicant's costs. The court found that the principles on costs in normal civil proceedings are applicable to disciplinary proceedings, and there was no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applicant is entitled to his costs in the action, to be taxed if not agreed and paid by the Law Society.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court addresses costs after quashing disciplinary committee findings against Shankar Alan, holding Law Society liable for costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Costs to be paid | Lost | |
| Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | Applicant | Individual | Application allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicant successfully applied for judicial review to quash findings by a Disciplinary Committee.
- The Law Society opposed the application for a quashing order.
- The Law Society argued it was fulfilling its statutory duty by participating in the proceedings.
- The court found no evidence that the Law Society had acted in bad faith.
- The court considered the principles and authorities regarding the award of costs in civil proceedings.
- The court distinguished several cases cited by the Law Society.
- The court relied on the decision in Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council [2005] 3 SLR 709.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, OS 668/2006, [2007] SGHC 12
- Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni, , [2006] SGHC 194
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment given in Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni [2006] SGHC 194, quashing findings of the Disciplinary Committee. | |
| Judgment reserved on the question of costs. |
7. Legal Issues
- Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the general rule that costs follow the event applies to disciplinary proceedings, and the Law Society was liable for the applicant's costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2006] SGHC 194
- [1988] SLR 999
- [1992] 2 SLR 639
- [1996] 2 SLR 609
- [1994] 2 SLR 489
- [1993] 1 All ER 232
- [2002] 4 SLR 854
- [2005] 3 SLR 709
- [1988] SLR 132
- [1992] 1 WLR 1207
- [1984-1985] SLR 53
- [1988] SLR 1
- [1990] SLR 1312
- (1975) 11 SASR 66
- (1985) 41 SASR 226
- (1986) 41 SASR 232
- [1983] AC 598
8. Remedies Sought
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Judicial Review
- Costs
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 194 | Singapore | Cited as the primary case in which the applicant sought and obtained a quashing order against the Disciplinary Committee's findings, leading to the present costs hearing. |
| Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants | Unknown | Yes | [1988] SLR 999 | Singapore | Distinguished. Cited by the Law Society to argue against awarding costs to the applicant, but the court found it distinguishable because in that case, the Singapore Society of Accountants was deemed to have a duty to resist the appeal, unlike the Law Society in the present case. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Law Society took no active position on the application to quash the DC's findings, and no order as to costs was made. The court found this case to be more helpful to the applicant's position. |
| Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to award costs is discretionary and the court's overriding concern is to achieve the fairest allocation of costs. |
| Tullio v Maoro | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on which costs are to be awarded, including that costs should follow the event unless the circumstances warrant otherwise. |
| Re Elgindata (No. 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 232 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the principles on which costs were to be awarded. |
| Chua Ah Beng v The Commissioner of Labour | High Court | Yes | [2002] 4 SLR 854 | Singapore | Distinguished. Cited by the Law Society, but the court found it distinguishable because the plaintiff had succeeded in some respects but failed in others, unlike the present case where the applicant succeeded in obtaining the primary relief sought. |
| Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 709 | Singapore | Cited as a case of greatest assistance, where the court held that the principles on costs in normal civil proceedings should apply to the disciplinary process. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs | Unknown | Yes | [1988] SLR 132 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the notion of a completely subjective or unfettered discretion is contrary to the rule of law. |
| Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1207 | England and Wales | Cited as authority that costs should always follow the event unless the circumstances of the case warrant some other order. |
| Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 53 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Law Society had been held liable to pay costs following prosecutions that were ultimately unsuccessful. |
| Jeyaratnam JB v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [1988] SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Law Society had been held liable to pay costs following prosecutions that were ultimately unsuccessful. |
| Ang Boon Keng Lawrence v Law Society of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [1990] SLR 1312 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Law Society had been held liable to pay costs following prosecutions that were ultimately unsuccessful. |
| Schaftenaar v Samuels | Unknown | Yes | (1975) 11 SASR 66 | South Australia | Cited for principles concerning the exercise of judicial discretion on costs. |
| Beard v Wilde | Unknown | Yes | (1985) 41 SASR 226 | South Australia | Cited for the principle that it was not open to the Disciplinary Committee of the Singapore Medical Council in making its decision on costs to take into account any “errors of judgment” on the part of the applicant that did not amount to unprofessional conduct. |
| Fung & Wilde | Unknown | Yes | (1986) 41 SASR 232 | South Australia | Cited for the principle that an order that a successful party pay his own costs is properly to be characterised as an order for costs that is adverse to him. |
| Swain v Law Society of England & Wales | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] AC 598 | England and Wales | Cited by the Law Society to argue that it should not be made to bear the costs if it was in fact seeking to assist the court, but the court found this argument unpersuasive. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 94(1) of the Act | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 59 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Quashing order
- Costs
- Law Society
- Statutory duty
- Judicial review
- Professional misconduct
15.2 Keywords
- costs
- disciplinary proceedings
- judicial review
- law society
- legal profession
- quashing order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Costs | 80 |
| Administrative Law | 75 |
| Judicial Review | 60 |
| Banking Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law