Kalpanath Singh v Law Society: Reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors

Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh applied to the High Court of Singapore for reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors after being struck off in 1996 for cheating a client. The Law Society initially did not object but later withdrew its support. The Attorney-General objected. The court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the application, citing concerns about Singh's rehabilitation and the potential impact on public confidence in the legal profession.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Kalpanath Singh seeks reinstatement to the Roll after being struck off for cheating. The court considers his rehabilitation and public confidence in the legal profession.

1.7 Decision Date

25 August 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Vergis S Abraham, Vikna Rajah
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Application dismissed	Won	K Anparasan
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Application dismissed	Won	Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck, Stanley Kok

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of Appeal	No
V K Rajah	Justice of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Vergis S Abraham	Drew & Napier LLC
Vikna Rajah	Drew & Napier LLC
K Anparasan	KhattarWong
Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck	Attorney-General's Chambers
Stanley Kok	Attorney-General's Chambers

4. Facts

The Applicant was struck off the Roll on 17 May 1996 for misconduct.
The Applicant was found guilty of cheating a client of $5,000 and attempting to cheat the same client of a further $5,000.
The Law Society applied to the Court of Three Judges, requiring the Applicant to show cause why he should not be disciplined.
The Applicant applied to have his name reinstated to the Roll pursuant to s 102(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed).
The Attorney-General objected to the application.
The Law Society indicated that it no longer wished to support the reinstatement application.
The Applicant had committed several regulatory offences between 2003 and 2009.

5. Formal Citations

Kalpanath Singh s/o Ram Raj Singh v Law Society of Singapore, OS 1547/2008, [2009] SGHC 190

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1979-01-01	Applicant called to the Bar.
1987-01-01	Applicant retained by Lee Sim Yow in copyright infringement action.
1987-09-18	Lee Sim Yow paid $5,000 to Applicant's firm.
1988-01-21	Lee Sim Yow issued a second cheque for $5,000.
1992-03-01	Applicant charged in court for cheating.
1995-08-03	Applicant found guilty by the High Court of cheating.
1995-09-01	High Court overturned the district court ruling and convicted the Applicant.
1996-05-17	Applicant struck off the Roll.
1997-08-14	Applicant released from prison.
2001-07-01	Applicant operated another food and beverage outlet in Little India Arcade.
2003-01-01	Applicant summoned by the Ministry of Manpower.
2006-02-10	Applicant committed offence of operating a food establishment without a licence.
2006-02-12	Applicant committed offence of operating a food establishment without a licence.
2006-07-15	Applicant failed to pay contributions to CPF in respect of one employee.
2007-01-01	Applicant summoned by Traffic Police for driving past a red light.
2007-06-01	Applicant relinquished his business.
2007-12-01	Applicant summoned twice by the URA for placing tables and chairs in the parking space.
2008-01-01	Applicant summoned by the ACRA for failing to hold the company’s AGM and failing to lodge the company’s annual returns in time.
2008-12-05	Applicant applied to have his name reinstated to the Roll.
2009-01-01	Applicant summoned by Traffic Police for driving past a red light.
2009-02-25	Oral hearing before the Court.
2009-08-26	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for reinstatement.
- Category: Substantive
Fitness to be restored to the Roll
- Outcome: The court found that the applicant was not a fit person to be restored to the Roll.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Reinstatement to the Roll of Advocates and Solicitors

9. Cause of Actions

Application for reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors

10. Practice Areas

Reinstatement to Roll of Advocates and Solicitors

11. Industries

Legal

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Law Society of Singapore v Kalpanath Singh s/o Ramraj Singh	High Court	Yes	[1996] SGHC 129	Singapore	Judgment relating to the striking-off order of the applicant.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR 704	Singapore	Cited for establishing that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant should consider making a reinstatement application.
Re Nirmal Singh s/o Fauja Singh	High Court	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 608	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant should consider making a reinstatement application.
Re Chan Chow Wang	High Court	Yes	[1982-1983] SLR 413	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where the court applied the approach that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant should consider making a reinstatement application.
Re Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 180	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where the court applied the approach that a significantly longer period than five years should have passed before an applicant should consider making a reinstatement application.
Narindar Singh Kang v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4SLR 641	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the more serious the offence committed, the longer a period of time must elapse before an applicant could be restored to the Roll.
Gnaguru s/o Thamboo Mylvaganam v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that reinstatement is the exception rather than the rule.
Meredith v Legal Profession Admission Board of New South Wales	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2008] NSWSC 1170	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that the court's jurisdiction is for the protection of the public and the public's interest in the restoration to the Roll of such persons as have demonstrated a fitness to be restored.
Kotowitz v Law Society of New South Wales	Court of Appeal	Yes	Kotowitz v Law Society of New South Wales (Court of Appeal, 2 August 1987) (unreported)	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that the court's jurisdiction is for the protection of the public and the public's interest in the restoration to the Roll of such persons as have demonstrated a fitness to be restored.
Walter Corneille Clement Marie Janus v Queensland Law Society Inc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] QCA 180	Queensland	Cited as an example where the applicant had been obdurate about admitting that his actions had been wrongful to begin with, and the court had to deny him re-admission despite an impressive paper application to be reinstated.
Greg Gregory v Queensland Law Society Incorporated	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] QCA 499	Queensland	Cited as an example where the applicant had been obdurate about admitting that his actions had been wrongful to begin with, and the court had to deny him re-admission despite an impressive paper application to be reinstated.
Re Ram Kishan	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court must consider as its primary duty the protection of the interests of the public and the profession as a whole over and above the interests of the applicant.
Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales v Meagher	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1909) 9 CLR 655	Australia	Cited for the principle that the applicant must satisfy the tribunal that his purgation is complete, his repentance real, his determination to act uprightly and honourably so secure that he may be fairly re-entrusted with the high duties and grave responsibilities of a minister of justice.
Bolton v Law Society	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 WLR 512	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the essential issue is the need to maintain among members of the public a well-founded confidence that any solicitor whom they instruct will be a person of unquestionable integrity, probity and trustworthiness.
PP v Kalpanath Singh	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 564	Singapore	The High Court overturned the ruling of the district court and convicted the Applicant on the said two charges.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 102 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420	Singapore
Penal Code s 511	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Rev Ed) s 83	Singapore
Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 2002 Rev Ed) Section 32(1)	Singapore
Environmental Public Health (Public Cleansing) Regulations (Cap 95, Rg 3, 2000 Rev Ed) Regulation 8(3)	Singapore
Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2004 Rev Ed) Section 65C	Singapore
CPF Act (Cap 36, 2001 Rev Ed) Section 58 (b), punishable under s 61	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Reinstatement
Roll of Advocates and Solicitors
Misconduct
Dishonesty
Rehabilitation
Public confidence
Legal profession
Regulatory offences
Fitness to practice

15.2 Keywords

reinstatement
legal profession
advocate
solicitor
singapore
law society
professional conduct
ethics
dishonesty
cheating

16. Subjects

Legal Profession
Ethics
Reinstatement

17. Areas of Law

Legal Profession
Professional Conduct