Nalpon v Law Society: Judicial Review of Review Committee Decision on Lawyers' Conduct
Mr. Nalpon applied for judicial review of the Law Society's decision regarding the conduct of lawyers in a civil suit, specifically concerning allegations of misleading the court. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of reasonable suspicion that the Review Committee's decision was Wednesbury unreasonable. The court held that the Review Committee's decision was not irrational and that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for judicial review.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Judicial Review
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Judicial review of Law Society's decision regarding lawyers' conduct. The court dismissed the application for leave, finding no Wednesbury unreasonableness.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| P Padman | KSCGP Juris LLP |
| Timothy Yeo | KSCGP Juris LLP |
4. Facts
- The applicant lodged a complaint with the Law Society against three lawyers.
- The Review Committee found no support for the applicant's complaint and directed its dismissal.
- The applicant filed an ex parte application for leave to commence judicial review proceedings.
- The applicant alleged the Lawyers were guilty of conduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor.
- The applicant claimed the Lawyers misled the court by submitting that Innovez had only one project during the material period.
- The Review Committee rendered its decision seven days from the date of its inception.
- The Review Committee did not exercise its powers under s 85(7) of the Legal Profession Act to call the applicant or the Lawyers to answer any inquiry or furnish any record.
5. Formal Citations
- Re Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario, , [2017] SGHC 301
- Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario, Originating Summons No 675 of 2017, Originating Summons No 675 of 2017
- Nalpon, Zero Geraldo Mario, Registrar’s Appeal No 232 of 2017, Registrar’s Appeal No 232 of 2017
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore. | |
| Review Committee No 035 of 2017 was constituted. | |
| The Review Committee informed the applicant that there was no support for his complaint and directed that it be dismissed. | |
| The applicant filed Originating Summons No 675 of 2017. | |
| The Law Society filed the Notice of Appointment. | |
| Pre-Trial Conference before AR Lee. | |
| Pre-Trial Conference before AR Lee. | |
| The applicant filed Registrar’s Appeal No 232 of 2017. | |
| OS 675/2017 and RA 232/2017 came before See Kee Oon J. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Judicial Review of Review Committee Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the Review Committee's decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable and dismissed the application for leave.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Wednesbury unreasonableness
- Failure to provide adequate reasons
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 483
- [2013] 2 SLR 844
- [1994] 1 AC 531
- [1948] 1 KB 223
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order against the decision of the Review Committee
- Order that the complaint be reheard by a freshly constituted review committee
9. Cause of Actions
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Administrative Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 1108 | Singapore | Cited for the Law Society's right to hold a watching brief in the leave application. |
| Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 206 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an Assistant Registrar's direction is essentially an administrative decision and should not be appealable. |
| Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for granting leave under O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court. |
| Axis Law Corp v Intellectual Property Office of Singapore | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 554 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for granting leave under O 53 r 1 of the Rules of Court. |
| Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and does not extend to a review of the merits of the decision itself. |
| Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an in-depth examination is inappropriate and the court is not permitted to resolve conflicting factual evidence and arguments in order to decide whether to grant or refuse leave. |
| Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an application for leave is simply a means of filtering out groundless or hopeless cases at an early stage. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England | Cited for the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 483 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the test for Wednesbury unreasonableness sets a “high bar” for the applicant to meet. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 844 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there remains no general common law duty to give reasons for administrative decisions in Singapore. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 531 | England | Cited for the principle that there remains no general common law duty to give reasons for administrative decisions in Singapore. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1984] 3 WLR 1174 | England | Cited for the test applied in the English House of Lords decision of Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174 at 1196. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 53 rule 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 43 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial review
- Review Committee
- Wednesbury unreasonableness
- Leave application
- Prima facie case
- Reasonable suspicion
- Ex parte application
- Law Society
- Legal Profession Act
15.2 Keywords
- Judicial review
- Law Society
- Legal Profession
- Singapore
- Administrative Law
16. Subjects
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review
- Legal Profession
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Judicial Review