Deepak Sharma v Law Society: Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings for Excessive Party and Party Costs

Deepak Sharma appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss his application for judicial review of the Law Society of Singapore's decision regarding his complaint against two lawyers from WongPartnership LLP, Mr. Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC and Ms. Ho Pei Shien Melanie, for allegedly claiming grossly excessive party and party costs against his wife, Dr. Lim Mey Lee Susan, in prior disciplinary proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Review Committee's decision that a significant reduction in costs on taxation does not, in itself, amount to professional misconduct in the absence of other impropriety.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed. The court found no error in the Law Society's decision regarding a complaint about excessive party and party costs.

1.7 Decision Date

15 March 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Harjean Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP Christopher Anand Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP
Deepak Sharma	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Abraham S Vergis of Providence Law Asia LLC Danny Quah of Providence Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Judith Prakash	Judge of Appeal	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Harjean Kaur	Advocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand Daniel	Advocatus Law LLP
Abraham S Vergis	Providence Law Asia LLC
Danny Quah	Providence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

The appellant's wife, Dr. Lim, faced disciplinary proceedings by the Singapore Medical Council.
WongPartnership LLP (WP), the SMC's lawyers, filed three bills of costs totaling $1,007,009.37.
The assistant registrar taxed down the costs to $340,000.
WP reduced the claim to $720,000 at the taxation review, citing a 20% discount due to overlap between lawyers and exclusion of re-getting up costs for new lawyers.
The judge increased the amount allowed to $370,000.
The appellant complained that Mr. Yeo and Ms. Ho from WP were charging exorbitant bills of costs.
The Review Committee dismissed part of the complaint against Mr. Yeo and Ms. Ho.

5. Formal Citations

Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 82 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-12-03	Ministry of Health of Singapore sent a letter of complaint against Dr Lim to the chairman of the SMC’s Complaints Panel.
2008-11-17	A Complaints Committee ordered that a formal inquiry should be held by a Disciplinary Committee.
2010-07-29	The disciplinary committee recused itself.
2010-09-14	The SMC appointed a second disciplinary committee.
2010-01-01	Dr Lim filed Originating Summons No 1252 of 2010 for leave to apply for a quashing order.
2010-01-01	Dr Lim filed Originating Summons No 1131 of 2010, seeking a declaration that the SMC had no legal right to adduce in evidence the confidential medical records of the patient.
2011-05-26	Pillai J dismissed OS 1252/2010.
2011-06-24	Dr Lim filed Civil Appeal No 80 of 2011 against Pillai J’s decision.
2011-11-10	This court heard the appeal.
2011-11-30	This court dismissed the appeal.
2012-06-21	The disciplinary tribunal convicted Dr Lim on all 94 charges.
2013-04-19	The SMC’s lawyers, WongPartnership LLP, filed three bills of costs for taxation.
2013-06-28	Dr Lim’s appeal against her conviction was dismissed by the High Court.
2013-08-12	At the taxation review hearing before the Judge, WP indicated that it was reducing the total sum claimed in the Bills of Costs to $720,000.
2014-01-23	The Appellant sent a letter of complaint to the Chairman of the Complaints Panel of the Respondent.
2014-04-10	The Respondent replied in writing to the Complaint, informing the Appellant that a Review Committee had been constituted to consider the complaint and that the RC had reached a decision.
2014-06-26	The Appellant filed Originating Summons No 593 of 2014, seeking leave to apply for a quashing order against the RC’s decision.
2017-01-18	Judgment reserved.
2017-03-16	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Professional Misconduct
- Outcome: The court held that a significant reduction in costs on taxation does not, in itself, amount to professional misconduct in the absence of other impropriety.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Gross overcharging
  - Breach of duty to the court
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 4 SLR 1184
Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court determined that the Review Committee's decision was susceptible to judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that any person could make a complaint pursuant to s 85(1) of the LPA.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 272

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing order against the Review Committee's decision
Order that the complaint be heard by a freshly constituted review committee

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Proceedings

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Appeals
Regulatory Law

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 192	Singapore	The current appeal is against the decision of the High Court judge in this case, which dismissed an application for judicial review.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 156	Singapore	Cited as part of the factual background of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 701	Singapore	Cited as part of the factual background of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 900	Singapore	Cited as part of the factual background of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 129	Singapore	Cited as part of the factual background of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 933	Singapore	Cited as part of the factual background of the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Lim.
Re Fordham, Michael QC	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 272	Singapore	Cited for the view expressed (albeit by way of obiter dicta) with regard to the effect of s 85(1) of the LPA.
Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul	High Court	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 1184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that gross overcharging by a lawyer constitutes professional misconduct.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 844	Singapore	Cited for the principle that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not the actual decision made.
Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs	High Court	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 30	Singapore	Cited for the principle that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not the actual decision made.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 488	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a failure to consider an important issue that has been pleaded is a breach of natural justice.
ASG v ASH	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 54	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there will be no breach of natural justice if the tribunal reaches its decision on the argument implicitly, or reaches the wrong decision, or in fact fails to understand the argument.
TMM Division Maritima SA de CV v Pacific Richfield Marine Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 972	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the central inquiry is whether the decision reflects the fact that the tribunal had applied its mind to the critical issues and arguments.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the supervising court is not exercising appellate jurisdiction and it should not stray beyond its proper remit by venturing improperly into the merits.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 59 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 53, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap. 322, Rule 5)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Party and party costs
Taxation of costs
Professional misconduct
Gross overcharging
Review committee
Judicial review
Locus standi
Rules of Court
Legal Profession Act

15.2 Keywords

Judicial review
Disciplinary proceedings
Party and party costs
Professional misconduct
Singapore
Law Society

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings	95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility	90
Party and party costs	90
Judicial Review	85
Gross overcharging	85
Legal Profession Act	80
Administrative Law	75
Costs	70

16. Subjects

Legal Ethics
Civil Procedure
Administrative Law