Mohd Sadique v Law Society: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Tribunal Decisions
Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican and another applied for leave to seek a quashing order against the Law Society of Singapore regarding disciplinary proceedings and a report by the Disciplinary Tribunal. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Philip Pillai JC, considered whether section 91A of the Legal Profession Act restricts judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's decisions. The court dismissed the applications, finding that section 91A consolidates judicial review into the processes under sections 97 and 98 of the LPA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for leave to quash disciplinary proceedings and a report. The court considered whether judicial review is restricted by s 91A of the Legal Profession Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Tan Cheng Han, Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim Marican, Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar |
| Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Application Dismissed | Won | Richard Kwek, Andre Maniam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Pillai | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Cheng Han | Intelleigen Legal LLC |
| Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim Marican | Intelleigen Legal LLC |
| Anand Kumar s/o Toofani Beldar | Intelleigen Legal LLC |
| Richard Kwek | Gurbani & Co |
| Andre Maniam | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicants sought to quash disciplinary proceedings and a report by the Disciplinary Tribunal.
- The Law Society argued section 91A of the Legal Profession Act restricts judicial review.
- Section 91A was introduced via the 2008 amendments to the Legal Profession Act.
- The applicants argued section 91A only applies to acts and decisions during proceedings.
- The Disciplinary Committee was renamed the Disciplinary Tribunal in 2008.
- Section 97 of the LPA has enlarged the powers of the single Judge by expressly providing for “review”.
- The powers of the court of 3 Judges were also expanded under the amended s 98 of the LPA.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican and another v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 343 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 150
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Disciplinary Tribunal issued report | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Restriction of Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that section 91A of the Legal Profession Act restricts judicial review of the Disciplinary Tribunal's decisions, consolidating it into the processes under sections 97 and 98 of the LPA.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing of disciplinary proceedings
- Quashing of Disciplinary Tribunal report
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Quashing Order
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Regulatory Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 595 | Singapore | Cited to differentiate between judicial review and show cause proceedings. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 934 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee could be subject to judicial review. |
| Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the findings and determination of the Disciplinary Committee could be subject to judicial review. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | Cited to stress that the court of three judges was not an alternative remedy to seeking judicial review. |
| Council of Civil Services Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 374 | England and Wales | Cited for the three grounds of judicial review – illegality, irrationality and (procedural) impropriety. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 53 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 91A | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 93 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 97 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed), s 98 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession Act
- Quashing Order
- Findings and Determination
- Show Cause Proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession Act
- Singapore
- Law Society
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Judicial Review
- Legal Profession
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Legal Profession Act
- Judicial Review