Law Society v Nor'ain Abu Bakar: Lawyers' Misconduct in Deceiving Court over Release of Funds

In Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Law Society concerning disciplinary actions against lawyers Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar, Ruby Tan Kim Suan, and Peter Chua Seng Hock. The lawyers were found to have knowingly deceived or misled the court into releasing moneys paid into court. The court ordered that Nor'ain Abu Bakar and Peter Chua Seng Hock be struck off the roll. Ruby Tan Kim Suan was suspended from practice for three years.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The Court ordered that Nor'ain Abu Bakar and Peter Chua Seng Hock be struck off the roll. Ruby Tan Kim Suan was suspended from practice for three years.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain Abu Bakar addresses lawyers deceiving the court to release funds, resulting in disciplinary actions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeApplicantStatutory BoardApplication AllowedWon
Nor'ain bte Abu BakarRespondentIndividualStruck off the rollLost
Ruby Tan Kim SuanRespondentIndividualSuspended from practice for three yearsPartial
Peter Chua Seng HockRespondentIndividualStruck off the rollLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lai Yew FeiRajah & Tann LLP
Dominic ChanRajah & Tann LLP
Andre YeapRajah & Tann LLP
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Shashi NathanHarry Elias Partnership
Adrian WeeHarry Elias Partnership
Dube Vinod KumarPeter Chua & Partners
Deborah BarkerKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. The respondents, Nor’ain bte Abu Bakar, Ruby Tan Kim Suan, and Peter Chua Seng Hock, are advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore.
  2. The Law Society applied for the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act.
  3. The disciplinary proceedings arose out of the respondents' involvement in the disposition of the proceeds of sale of properties belonging to the Basharahil estate.
  4. The respondents failed to disclose material facts to the court regarding competing claims to the moneys paid into court.
  5. The respondents obtained an order for payment out of court of $4.27m to JAK, despite knowledge of competing claims.
  6. The respondents failed to inform the court that there were insufficient moneys remaining in court to give effect to other applications for payment out.
  7. The first respondent, Nor'ain Abu Bakar, and the third respondent, Peter Chua Seng Hock, were found to have acted fraudulently.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Law Society of Singapore v Nor'ain bte Abu Bakar and Others, OS 1785/2007, SUM 252/2008, [2008] SGHC 169

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil died.
Camp B beneficiaries purported to sell the 29 Properties to Beng Tiong Trading Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd.
Abdurrachman Abdullah Wachdin Basyarahil purportedly sold the 29 Properties to JAK for $14m.
Six sub-estates purportedly assigned and released to Jafar all their interests and entitlements in the 29 Properties for $12m.
JAK sold 25 of the 29 Properties to By Products Traders Pte Ltd and one David Reginald Broadley.
The Public Trustee was appointed the trustee of the will of the testator.
Jafar was made a bankrupt.
Beng Tiong obtained an order in Suit No 1255 of 1996 that it was entitled to the rights, interests, benefits and entitlements of the Camp B beneficiaries in the 29 Properties.
The Public Trustee made an application in Originating Summons No 1030 of 2000 for an order to sell the 29 Properties.
An order was obtained from the Pamekasan Religious Court of Madura.
Musa and Salim filed Originating Summons No 600626 of 2001.
Lee JC decided that Musa and Salim were not the agents or authorised representatives of all the beneficiaries of the B Estate.
Lee JC held that the Camp A beneficiaries were only entitled to 43.75% of the B Estate.
ABTIP commenced Suit No 1497 of 2002 on behalf of JAK against Musa and Salim.
Salim accepted service of the writ in Singapore.
Judgment in default of appearance was entered against Salim.
JAK discontinued the action against Musa.
B&B applied in OS 1030/2000 for payment of $3,622,000 from the PT.
B&B commenced Suit No 453 of 2003 against JAK.
The B&B Payment Out Application was heard.
JAK applied via Summons in Chambers No 6556 of 2003 in the JAK Suit to enforce the default judgment against Salim.
Assistant Registrar Amy Tung dismissed the JAK Garnishee Application.
JAK appealed against AR Tung’s order.
The court made a consent order that the PT would apply to pay these moneys into court.
Prakash J made an order in OS 1030/2000 for the payment into court of the distributive shares of the six sub-estates.
The solicitors for the estate of Umar bin Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin Basyarahil wrote to the three respondents.
The UAAWB Estate applied to court for payment out of its distributive share of the Sale Proceeds.
The PT informed all the claimants that he had paid into court the sum of the distributive shares of the Camp A beneficiaries.
The second respondent filed an application on behalf of JAK for payment out of $4.27m.
AR Ching granted the application to pay out $4.27m to JAK under the JAK Suit.
ABTIP filed an affidavit on behalf of JAK to oppose the UAAWB Application.
The money was paid out.
The solicitors for the ARAW Estate applied for payment out of its distributive share of the Sale Proceeds.
The trial of the B&B Suit took place in October and November 2004.
The ARAW Application came up for hearing before Rajah JC.
JAK filed an affidavit to oppose the ARAW Application.
Tan J gave judgment in favour of B&B against JAK in the B&B Suit.
The first and second respondents appeared before V K Rajah J to oppose the joinder of the UAAWB Application with the ARAW Application.
B&B applied for payment out of $3,744,666.67 pursuant to its judgment against JAK.
The ARAW Application was adjourned.
Rajah J allowed the UAAWB Application.
B&B's application for payment out came before Rajah J.
Letters of Administration De Bonis Non to the estate of Amat bin Achmad bin Adbullah Wachdin Basyarahil were granted.
The ARAW Application was adjourned.
B&B applied for an order that ABTIP and/or JAK make restitution of the sum paid out to ABTIP.
The Restitution Application came up for hearing.
The matter came before Rajah J.
JAK was wound up.
The Law Society’s inquiry committee referred David Reginald Broadley's complaint to the DC.
The DC issued its report.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Conduct
    • Outcome: The Court found that Nor'ain Abu Bakar and Peter Chua Seng Hock had engaged in fraudulent conduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deception of the court
      • Misleading the court
      • Suppression of information
  2. Grossly Improper Conduct
    • Outcome: The Court found that all three respondents had engaged in grossly improper conduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of professional duty
      • Failure to disclose relevant information
  3. Misconduct Unbefitting an Advocate and Solicitor
    • Outcome: The Court found that all three respondents had engaged in misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of professional ethics
      • Failure to maintain integrity
  4. Deceiving or Misleading the Court
    • Outcome: The Court found that Nor'ain Abu Bakar and Peter Chua Seng Hock had deceived or misled the court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Withholding information
      • Suppression of facts
  5. Failure to Inform the Court of Relevant Decisions
    • Outcome: The Court found that all three respondents had failed to inform the court of relevant decisions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-disclosure of competing claims
      • Non-disclosure of prior rulings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Disciplinary Action
  2. Striking off the Roll
  3. Suspension from Practice

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Professional Duty
  • Fraud
  • Deceit

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Conduct
  • Disciplinary Proceedings

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Beng Tiong Trading, Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd v Maria Janda Achmad bin Abdullah Wachdin BasharahilHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR 518SingaporeCited to show that Beng Tiong obtained an order that it was entitled to the rights, interests, benefits and entitlements of the Camp B beneficiaries in the 29 Properties.
Re Will of Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain BasharahilHigh CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR 433SingaporeCited for the decision that Musa and Salim were not the agents or authorised representatives of all the beneficiaries of the B Estate.
By Products Traders Pte Ltd v JAK Alhadad & Co Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 265SingaporeCited to show that judgment was entered in favour of B&B for $3,425,000 (plus interest).
Syed Salim Alhadad v Dickson Holdings Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 257SingaporeCited to show that the 1992 Order and the DOAT were set aside by Warren Khoo J.
Public Trustee v By Products Traders Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR 449SingaporeCited to show that Rajah J made a direction under s 85(3)(b) of the Act that the conduct of the respondents in OS 1030/2000 be referred to a DC.
Re Lim Kiap KheeCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR 616SingaporeCited for the holding that an intention to deceive was a requirement of fraudulent conduct.
In re London and Globe Finance Corporation, LimitedChancery DivisionYes[1903] 1 Ch 728England and WalesCited for the definition of 'deceive' and 'defraud'.
William Derry v Sir Henry William PeekHouse of LordsYes(1889) 14 App Cas 337United KingdomCited for the definition of fraud at common law.
Seet Soon Guan v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1955] MLJ 223MalaysiaCited for the meaning of 'fraudulently' or with intent to defraud under the Malaysian equivalent of s 25 of the Penal Code.
S P Chengalvaraya Naidu v JagannathSupreme CourtYesAIR 1994 SC 853IndiaCited for the same meaning given to the definition in the Penal Code (Act No 45 of 1860) (India).
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo PhyllisHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR 239SingaporeCited for the prosecutorial discretion in Law Society of Singapore.
Law Society of Singapore v Ng Chee SingHigh CourtYes[2000] 2 SLR 165SingaporeCited for the relevant sentencing principles applicable to professional misconduct.
Myers v ElmanHouse of LordsYes[1940] AC 282United KingdomCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
Rondel v WorsleyHouse of LordsYes[1969] 1 AC 191United KingdomCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
McBrearty v HM AdvocateHigh Court of JusticiaryYes2004 SLT 917ScotlandCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
Hollins v RussellCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 912England and WalesCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
Geveran Trading Co Ltd v SkjeveslandCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 912England and WalesCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
Copeland v SmithCourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 WLR 1371England and WalesCited for the importance of the duty of the advocate to act with the utmost integrity, propriety and candour in court.
Regina v UlcayCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 WLR 1209England and WalesCited for the observations on the advocate and solicitor’s ultimate responsibility to the court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) s 83Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 25Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fraudulent Conduct
  • Grossly Improper Conduct
  • Misleading the Court
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Payment Out Application
  • Competing Claims
  • Breach of Duty
  • Sale Proceeds
  • Basharahil Estate

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession
  • Fraud
  • Misconduct
  • Discipline
  • Singapore
  • Law Society
  • Advocate
  • Solicitor
  • Deception
  • Misleading Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Profession Act90
Professional Ethics90
Professional Misconduct85
Duty of Candour80
Legal Ethics75
Fraud and Deceit70
Civil Procedure50
Breach of Court Order40
Duty to Account40
Evidence30
Forgery30
Costs20
Contempt of Court20
Estoppel10

16. Subjects

  • Professional Ethics
  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Disciplinary Proceedings