Law Society v Top Ten: Review of Disciplinary Proceedings & Costs Allocation
The Law Society of Singapore appealed against a costs order made against it in favor of Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd, arising from disciplinary proceedings against an advocate and solicitor, Andre Arul. Top Ten had filed a complaint against Arul, which the Law Society's Council dismissed. Top Ten then sought a review, which resulted in the Law Society being ordered to pay 50% of Top Ten's costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Law Society's appeal, holding that there is no right of appeal against the decision of a Judge made under s 96(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on costs order against Law Society in disciplinary proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal, holding no right of appeal exists.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law Society of Singapore | Appellant | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Costs Order Upheld | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Top Ten filed a complaint against Arul for rendering exorbitant bills and acting contrary to instructions.
- The Inquiry Committee recommended dismissing the complaint but imposing a fine on Arul for breaching Practice Directions.
- The Council accepted the Inquiry Committee's findings and dismissed the complaint.
- Top Ten applied for review of the Council's decision under s 96(1) of the Legal Profession Act.
- The Review Judge directed the Law Society to apply for a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate Arul's conduct.
- The Review Judge ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of Top Ten's costs in the review proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 20 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Top Ten filed a complaint to the Law Society against Arul. | |
| Complaint re-lodged. | |
| Email sent containing instructions to Arul to transfer costs directly to Top Ten. | |
| Email sent making the same allegation was before the Inquiry Committee. | |
| Arul received party and party costs. | |
| Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2008 amended the Legal Profession Act. | |
| Originating Summons No 1048 of 2008 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Decision Date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Costs in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court held that the Baxendale-Walker principle should be applied as a starting point in determining costs in disciplinary proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of the Baxendale-Walker principle
- Whether costs should follow the event
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 WLR 426
- Right of Appeal in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court held that there is no right of appeal against a Judge's decision made under s 96(4) of the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether a right of appeal exists from a Judge's decision under s 96(4) of the Legal Profession Act
- Related Cases:
- [1977–1978] SLR(R) 342
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Council's Decision
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Professional Duties
- Breach of Legal Profession Act
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Appeals
- Cost Orders
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 291 | Singapore | Decision from which this appeal arose. |
| Baxendale-Walker v Law Society | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 426 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a regulatory body should not ordinarily be made to pay costs when performing a public function. |
| Tullio Planeta v Maoro Andrea G | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court would not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless its exercise was manifestly wrong or it was exercised on wrong principles. |
| Lim Teng Ee Joyce v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Referred to by the Review Judge in coming to her finding. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the Law Society has the option of taking a neutral position in an application under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Ang Boon Kong Lawrence v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 783 | Singapore | Counsel for Top Ten relied on this authority. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 825 | Singapore | Counsel for Top Ten relied on this authority. |
| Re Lim Chor Pee | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Counsel for Top Ten relied on this authority. |
| Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 209 | Singapore | Counsel for Top Ten relied on this authority. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 470 | Singapore | Counsel for Top Ten relied on this authority. |
| Baxendale-Walker v Law Society | English Divisional Court | Yes | [2006] 3 All ER 675 | England and Wales | The LSEW was ordered by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal to pay 30% of a solicitor’s costs before the tribunal where the solicitor had successfully defended one allegation against him. |
| R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 1508 | England and Wales | Endorsed and refined the Baxendale-Walker principle. |
| Walker v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons | Privy Council | Yes | [2008] UKPC 20 | United Kingdom | Different considerations may apply in the case of a successful appeal against a decision of a disciplinary tribunal. |
| Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | The decision of the Disciplinary Committee was amenable to judicial review. |
| Chew Kia Ngee v Singapore Society of Accountants | High Court | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Decided not to award costs in favour of an accountant who had successfully appealed against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Singapore Society of Accountants convicting him of professional misconduct. |
| Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore | Privy Council | Yes | [1977–1978] SLR(R) 342 | Singapore | Decided there was a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the Judge made under s 95 of the Legal Profession Act. |
| Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1971–1973] SLR(R) 685 | Singapore | The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits, and additionally expressed doubts on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
| Wong Juan Swee v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Approved Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore on an additional ground not mentioned by the Privy Council in Hilborne. |
| Wong Juan Swee v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 429 | Singapore | Lai Siu Chiu JC dismissed her application and she appealed. |
| Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | The issue of jurisdiction was not raised. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | The court here is exercising its appellate jurisdiction over the defendants as an administrative tribunal. |
| Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | It is trite law that there is no inherent right to appeal from judicial determinations made by our courts. |
| Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary Committee | Privy Council | Yes | [1965–1967] SLR(R) 64 | Singapore | This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Singapore constituted under s 30(7) of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance (Cap 188, 1955 Rev Ed) dated 28 February 1966 ordering that the appellant be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the High Court of Singapore. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 96(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 96(4) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 87 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 88 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 95 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 97 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 100 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 102 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 103 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Amendment) Act 2008 (Act 19 of 2008) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Accounts) Rules (Cap 161, R8, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 16 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 17 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 59 r 3(2) | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Costs Order
- Regulatory Body
- Baxendale-Walker Principle
- Right of Appeal
- Inquiry Committee
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession Act
- Review Judge
- Council of the Law Society
15.2 Keywords
- Law Society
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Costs
- Appeal
- Legal Profession Act
- Baxendale-Walker
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 90 |
| Costs | 80 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Civil Procedure