Deepak Sharma v Law Society: Costs in Private Judicial Review

In Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Deepak Sharma against the High Court's rejection of his application for judicial review of a Law Society review committee's decision. The Attorney-General (AG) intervened, seeking costs. The court addressed the novel issue of the AG's entitlement to costs in private judicial review proceedings, ultimately ruling that the AG is entitled to costs. The court ordered Deepak Sharma to pay costs to both the Law Society and the AG.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; Appellant to pay costs to the Respondent and the Attorney-General.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed concerning costs after judicial review rejection. The Attorney-General's entitlement to costs in private judicial review is examined.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Law Society of SingaporeRespondentStatutory BoardAppeal UpheldWon
Deepak SharmaAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealYes
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Harjean KaurAdvocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Abraham S VergisProvidence Law Asia LLC
Danny QuahProvidence Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. Deepak Sharma sought judicial review of a Law Society review committee's decision to dismiss his complaint against two lawyers.
  2. The Attorney-General intervened in the proceedings.
  3. The High Court rejected Deepak Sharma's application for judicial review.
  4. Deepak Sharma appealed against the High Court's decision.
  5. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
  6. The Attorney-General sought costs for his involvement in the High Court and on appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 82 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 43

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Disciplinary proceedings commenced against Dr. Lim Mey Lee Susan by the Singapore Medical Council.
The Law Society of Singapore's review committee dismissed part of Deepak Sharma's complaint.
High Court rejected Deepak Sharma's application for judicial review.
Judge ordered that the costs of the hearing be dealt with after or at the appeal.
Court of Appeal decision on appeal (Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore [2017] 1 SLR 862).
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Entitlement of Attorney-General to Costs in Private Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The court held that the Attorney-General is entitled to costs in private judicial review proceedings under certain circumstances.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Locus Standi in Complaints Against Lawyers
    • Outcome: The Judge rejected the AG’s argument that the Appellant must show that he had standing to make such a complaint.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Professional and Ethical Duties of Lawyers in Making Claims for Party-and-Party Costs
    • Outcome: The court considered the nature and scope of the professional and ethical duties owed by lawyers in making claims for party-and-party costs.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Order
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of SingaporeHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 192SingaporeSets out the facts of the dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent and is necessary to provide context to this judgment on costs.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 862SingaporeSets out the facts of the dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent and is necessary to provide context to this judgment on costs.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1279SingaporeCited for the principle that the AG should not be equated with an ordinary litigant who litigates to enforce or protect his private interests.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin and others v Minister for Information and the ArtsHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 627SingaporeCited for the AG's entitlement to appear at the hearing of the application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
George John v Goh Eng Wah Brothers Filem Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[1988] 1 MLJ 319MalaysiaCited with approval regarding the AG's standing to appear in judicial review proceedings.
Kanawagi a/l Seperumaniam v Dato’ Abdul Hamid bin MohamadHigh CourtYes[2004] 5 MLR 495MalaysiaElaborates on the reason for the requirement that the applicant is to serve his cause papers on the AG.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 131SingaporeCited regarding the AG's intervention in the substantive hearing of a judicial review application.
Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suitsHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 245SingaporeProvides a useful exposition of the conceptual and practical underpinnings of an award of party-and-party costs.
Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev DaveCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 155SingaporeCited for the principle that unmerited barriers in the path of recovering reasonably incurred costs might well have the chilling effect of deterring parties, in future, from legitimately pursuing or defending their rights.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 496SingaporeHeld that Coomaraswamy J had correctly identified the principles governing the legal regime on costs.
Baxendale-Walker v Law SocietyCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 WLR 426England and WalesStates that public bodies performing regulatory functions should be protected from having to pay costs unless they are proved to have acted in bad faith or are guilty of gross dereliction.
Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1047SingaporeCited as a case where costs were awarded to the AG, who had intervened in the private judicial review proceedings.
AXY & others v Comptroller of Income Tax (Attorney-General, intervener)High CourtYes[2017] SGHC 42SingaporeCited as a case where costs were awarded to the AG, who had intervened in the private judicial review proceedings.
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town CorpHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 94SingaporeCited as a case where costs were awarded in favour of the AG in situations where the AG was not originally a direct party to the proceedings concerned.
Yip Man Hing Kevin v Gleneagles HospitalHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 515SingaporeCited as a case where costs were awarded in favour of the AG in situations where the AG was not originally a direct party to the proceedings concerned.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-GeneralUnknownYes[2013] 1 SLR 619SingaporeCited for the proposition that the AG is a substantive party to the proceedings and can make the usual costs applications.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant KulkarniHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 95SingaporeCited for the principle that the discretion of the court on costs is not unfettered; it must in every case be exercised judiciously.
Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 1179SingaporeProvides helpful guidance, even though the facts of these cases involve somewhat different contexts.
Bolton v Law SocietyUnknownYes[1994] 1 WLR 512England and WalesMakes clear that disciplinary proceedings supervise the proper discharge by solicitors of their professional obligations, and guard the public interest.
R (Gorlov) v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and WalesUnknownYes[2001] ACD 393England and WalesUnless the complaint is improperly brought, or proceeds as a shambles from start to finish, when the Law Society is discharging its responsibilities as a regulator of the profession, an order for costs should not ordinarily be made against it on the basis that costs follow the event.
City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v BoothUnknownYes[2000] COD 338England and WalesIn matters concerning the exercise of a public regulatory function, costs decisions will involve a balancing of various factors.
R (Perinpanathan) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ CourtUnknownYes[2010] 1 WLR 1058England and WalesLord Bingham CJ stated that financial prejudice to the private party may justify an order for costs in his favour.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 53, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap. 322, Rule 5)
Order 59, Rule 6A of the Rules of Court
Order 59, Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Government Proceedings Act (Cap 121, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Republic of Singapore Independence Act (Act 9 of 1965)Singapore
Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (c 36)England and Wales
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Judicial Review
  • Costs
  • Attorney-General
  • Law Society
  • Public Interest
  • Private Judicial Review
  • Locus Standi
  • Party-and-Party Costs
  • Professional Misconduct
  • Review Committee

15.2 Keywords

  • Judicial Review
  • Costs
  • Attorney-General
  • Law Society
  • Singapore
  • Legal Profession
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Judicial Review90
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility80
Civil Practice75
Legal Profession Act65
Administrative Law60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Judicial Review
  • Legal Profession