Win-Win Aluminium v Law Society: Complaint Against Solicitor for False Evidence

Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd (“Win”) filed an application in the High Court of Singapore to direct the Law Society of Singapore to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of its complaint against Marina Chin Li Yuen, a solicitor representing Excalibur Land (S) Pte Ltd and Tavica Design Pte Ltd. Win alleged that Ms. Chin assisted her clients and witnesses to give false evidence. The High Court dismissed Win’s application, finding that Win did not understand the role of opposing counsel and that its complaint was misconceived. Win has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

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

Win-Win Aluminium sought to direct the Law Society to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal regarding their complaint against a solicitor. The application was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardWonWon
Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte LtdApplicant, AppellantCorporationApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prabhakaran N NairDerrick Wong & Lim BC LLP
Nedumaran MuthukrishnanM Nedumaran & Co

4. Facts

  1. Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd was engaged in disputes with Excalibur Land (S) Pte Ltd and Tavica Design Pte Ltd.
  2. Win made a complaint against Ms Chin, the solicitor representing Excalibur and Tavica, to the Law Society of Singapore.
  3. An Inquiry Committee recommended that Win’s complaint be dismissed, and the Council of the Law Society accepted this recommendation.
  4. Win alleged that Ms Chin assisted her client and witnesses to give false evidence and mislead the court.
  5. Win claimed Ms Chin deliberately requested a bifurcated hearing in the Arbitration to avoid disclosure of contradictory evidence.
  6. The arbitrator granted Tavica’s application to bifurcate the hearing and decided the Bifurcated Issues in favour of Tavica.
  7. Kan J applied the Interim Award to Suit 538/01 and entered judgment in favour of Excalibur against Win and Leck without a trial; this judgment was later set aside by the Court of Appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Win-Win Aluminium Systems Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 757 of 2011, [2012] SGHC 123

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Win negotiated with Excalibur for an aluminium work subcontract.
Excalibur agreed to award the aluminium subcontract to Win.
Win sent a letter to Excalibur regarding the arrangement.
A sales and purchase agreement was executed between Win and Excalibur.
Excalibur sent the Set-off letter to Win.
Tavica awarded the Sub-Contract to Win.
Win issued an invoice for the design fee.
William’s employment with Win was terminated.
Win commenced arbitration proceedings against Tavica.
Excalibur commenced Suit No 538 of 2001 against Win.
William executed an affidavit for Excalibur in Suit 538/01.
Suit 538/01 came up for hearing before Kan Ting Chiu J.
Win filed an action in Suit 13 of 2006 against William.
William’s defence filed in Suit 13/06.
William’s affidavit filed in Suit 13/06.
William’s affidavit filed in Suit 13/06.
Belinda Ang Saw Ean J ordered a stay of Suit 13/06.
Tavica applied for a bifurcation of the Arbitration.
The arbitrator decided the Bifurcated Issues in favour of Tavica by way of an interim award.
Win filed Originating Summons No 687 of 2009 to seek leave to appeal against the Interim Award.
Win's application was dismissed by Quentin Loh JC.
Excalibur filed Summons No 5752 of 2009 in Suit 538/01 to seek an order for a hearing of preliminary issues.
The application was granted by Steven Chong JC.
Kan J applied the Interim Award to Suit 538/01 and entered judgment in favour of Excalibur against Win and Leck without a trial.
Kan J ordered that Suit 13/06 be transferred to the Subordinate Court.
Suit 13/06 was heard by district judge Thian Yee Sze.
Suit 13/06 was heard by district judge Thian Yee Sze.
Kan J’s judgment was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Win made a complaint to the Law Society.
Ms Chin gave her explanation.
Sim executed an affidavit for this application.
High Court dismissed Win’s application.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Professional Misconduct of Solicitor
    • Outcome: The court found that the solicitor did not engage in professional misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assisting client to give false evidence
      • Misleading the court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Complaint against solicitor

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Responsibility
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bachoo Mohan Singh v PPCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the principle that a solicitor is not obliged to verify a client’s instructions unless there is compelling evidence that it is dubious.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Professional misconduct
  • False evidence
  • Misleading the court
  • Bifurcation
  • Inquiry Committee
  • Disciplinary Tribunal

15.2 Keywords

  • solicitor
  • professional misconduct
  • false evidence
  • Law Society
  • disciplinary tribunal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility75
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law50
Arbitration40
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Professional Ethics