Top Ten Entertainment v Law Society: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Decision
Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore against Mr. Andre Arul, alleging exorbitant bills and disobedience of instructions. The Law Society dismissed the complaint. Top Ten Entertainment sought judicial review in the High Court. The High Court affirmed the Inquiry Committee's finding on fees but directed the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate Mr. Arul's handling of client funds and ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs. The Law Society's appeal against the costs order was later dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate the solicitor's conduct.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review of Law Society's decision to dismiss a complaint against a solicitor. The court ordered a Disciplinary Tribunal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Defendant | Statutory Board | Partial Loss | Partial | |
| Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial Success | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohan Pillay | M Pillay |
| Yeo Boon Tat | M Pillay |
| Bajwa Ragbir Singh | Bajwa & Co |
4. Facts
- Top Ten Entertainment lodged a complaint against Mr. Andre Arul with the Law Society.
- The complaint alleged exorbitant bills and disobedience of instructions.
- The Law Society dismissed the complaint after an Inquiry Committee review.
- Top Ten Entertainment sought judicial review of the Law Society's decision.
- The court affirmed the Inquiry Committee's finding on fees.
- The court directed the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate Mr. Arul's conduct.
- The court ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff's costs.
5. Formal Citations
- Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 1048 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 263
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Top Ten Entertainment lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore. | |
| Complaint re-lodged with the Law Society. | |
| Review Committee formed to review the complaint. | |
| Inquiry Committee constituted to inquire into the complaint. | |
| Inquiry Committee rendered its findings. | |
| Top Ten Entertainment filed Originating Summons No 1048 of 2008/T. | |
| Court affirmed Inquiry Committee's finding and directed Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal. | |
| Law Society requested further arguments regarding costs order. | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors objected to Law Society's request. | |
| Court declined to hear further arguments. | |
| Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted. | |
| Law Society filed Notice of Appeal. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Law Society's Disciplinary Decision
- Outcome: The court ordered the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate the solicitor's conduct.
- Category: Procedural
- Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court ordered the Law Society to bear half the costs of the proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing of the Law Society's decision
- Order for a Disciplinary Tribunal
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overall aim of the discretionary power as to costs is to achieve the fairest allocation of costs in the circumstances of the case at hand. |
| Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 279 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overall aim of the discretionary power as to costs is to achieve the fairest allocation of costs in the circumstances of the case at hand. |
| Tullio Planeta v Maoro Andrea G | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a civil case, costs will ordinarily follow the event. |
| Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs should always follow the event unless the circumstances of the case warrant some other order, and that this principle applies to disciplinary proceedings. |
| Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1207 | England and Wales | Cited in Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council for the principle that costs should always follow the event unless the circumstances of the case warrant some other order. |
| Chua Ah Beng v Commissioner for Labour | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 945 | Singapore | Cited to show that the principle that costs follow the event is one consideration which guides the court in the exercise of its discretion, but that each case falls to be determined on its own facts. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 825 | Singapore | Cited as an example where costs have been ordered against the Law Society in proceedings brought under the LPA. |
| Ang Boon Kong Lawrence v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 783 | Singapore | Cited as the High Court decision in Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence. |
| Re Lim Chor Pee | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the respondent was awarded costs against the Law Society because the Law Society had framed the charges in an extremely broad manner and the evidence was inadequate. |
| R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 WLR 2600 | England and Wales | Cited by the Law Society to support its contention that the present proceedings related to a “public interest” litigation such that no costs should be ordered against the Law Society. |
| Oshlack v Richmond River Council | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1998) 193 CLR 72 | Australia | Cited as another case which deals with public interest in the outcome of litigation. |
| Baxendale-Walker v Law Society | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 426 | England and Wales | Cited by the Law Society to support its submission that it was not a civil litigant and should, therefore, not be “penalized” on costs when it came to fulfilling its statutory function. |
| Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society | Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [2006] 3 All ER 675 | England and Wales | Cited for the holding that where a regulator brings disciplinary proceedings in the public interest and in the exercise of a public function, which it is required to perform, it is different from private civil litigation. |
| Bolton's case | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 512 | N/A | Cited in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society for the principle that disciplinary proceedings supervise the proper discharge by solicitors of their professional obligations, and guard the public interest. |
| Gorlov's case | N/A | Yes | [2001] ACD 393 | N/A | Cited in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society for the principle that unless the complaint is improperly brought, or proceeds as a “shambles from start to finish”, an order for costs should not ordinarily be made against the Law Society on the basis that costs follow the event. |
| Booth’s case | N/A | Yes | [2000] COD 338 | N/A | Cited in Baxendale-Walker v Law Society for the principle that the responsibilities of the institute are equated with the regulatory actions of the licensing authority. |
| Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited by counsel for the Law Society in Re Shankar Alan to support his case that the Disciplinary Committee was established pursuant to a statutory regime regulating the legal profession and that the Law Society, in participating in the proceedings, was doing no more than fulfilling its statutory duty. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 595 | Singapore | Cited to show that it was open to the Law Society to take no active position on the application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 16(5) of the UK Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2007 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 85(10) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 96 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 96(4) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| s 34(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 87(1) of 2009 Rev Ed | Singapore |
| s 95 of 2009 Rev Ed | Singapore |
| s 85(1) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 85(1A) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s s85(6) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 85(8) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 85(9) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 96(1) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 38(1) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 97(1) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 97(3) of the LPA | Singapore |
| s 84(1) of the LPA | Singapore |
| UK Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47) | United Kingdom |
| s 46 of the UK Solicitors Act 1974 (c 47) | United Kingdom |
| s 47(2) of the Solicitors Act | United Kingdom |
| s 47(2)(i) of the Solicitors Act | United Kingdom |
| s 49(4) of the Solicitors Act | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial Review
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Law Society
- Legal Profession Act
- Costs
- Inquiry Committee
- Complaint
- Solicitor
- Professional Misconduct
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Judicial Review
- Legal Profession Act
- Solicitor
- Complaint
- Costs
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 80 |
| Costs | 70 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Law
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Judicial Review