Iskandar v Law Society: Appealability of Judge's Decision on Disciplinary Review under Legal Profession Act

Iskandar bin Rahmat appealed a High Court decision affirming the Law Society's denial of a formal investigation into his complaint against his trial counsel. The Law Society sought to strike out the appeal, citing Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, overruling Top Ten Entertainment and establishing a right of appeal under section 96 of the Legal Profession Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application to strike out the appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies appeal rights for disciplinary review decisions under s 96 of the Legal Profession Act.

1.7 Decision Date

7 January 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Iskandar bin Rahmat	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal not struck out	Neutral	Ravi s/o Madasamy
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Application dismissed	Lost	P Padman, Lim Yun Heng

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes
Judith Prakash	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ravi s/o Madasamy	Carson Law Chambers
P Padman	KSCGP Juris LLP
Lim Yun Heng	KSCGP Juris LLP

4. Facts

Mr. Iskandar filed a complaint against his trial counsel with the Law Society.
The Inquiry Committee recommended dismissing the complaint.
The Council of the Law Society determined that no formal investigation was necessary.
Mr. Iskandar applied to a judge to review the Council’s determination.
The Judge affirmed the Council’s determination.
Mr. Iskandar filed an appeal against the Judge’s decision.
The Law Society applied to strike out the appeal, arguing that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

5. Formal Citations

Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 9 of 2020 (Summons No 44 of 2020), [2021] SGCA 1

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-12-04	Iskandar bin Rahmat convicted of murder.
2017-02-03	Iskandar bin Rahmat’s appeal against conviction dismissed.
2018-02-14	Iskandar files complaint against trial counsel with Law Society.
2018-04-05	Iskandar sends follow-up letter regarding complaint.
2018-05-07	Iskandar sends follow-up letter regarding complaint.
2018-08-03	Inquiry Committee appointed.
2018-10-23	Inquiry Committee hears from trial counsel.
2018-12-10	Inquiry Committee speaks to Iskandar at Changi Prison Complex.
2019-01-10	Inquiry Committee speaks to Iskandar at Changi Prison Complex.
2019-02-07	Inquiry Committee recommends dismissing complaint.
2019-03-20	Law Society informs Iskandar no formal investigation necessary.
2019-06-07	Iskandar files HC/OS 716/2019 seeking review.
2019-10-10	Judge dismisses Iskandar's application.
2020-03-18	Law Society files CA/SUM 44/2020 to strike out appeal.
2020-09-15	Court of Appeal hears CA/SUM 5/2020.
2020-10-22	Court hears parties and reserves judgment.
2021-01-02	Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Amendment) Act 2019 in force.
2021-01-08	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Appealability of a Judge's Decision in Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that a decision of a Judge made pursuant to s 96 of the Legal Profession Act is appealable to the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

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

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Disciplinary Proceedings
Appellate Practice

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Overruled. The case was relied upon by the Law Society to argue that the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a judge's decision in disciplinary proceedings. The present court held Top Ten Entertainment was wrongly decided.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 258	Singapore	Cited for the two threshold requirements for the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction. The present court distinguished Re Nalpon Zero and held that the requirements were met.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 192	Singapore	Cited for the scope of judicial review over proceedings under the LPA regarding Review Committee decisions.
Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 862	Singapore	The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision in Deepak Sharma without discussion.
Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971–1973] SLR(R) 685	Singapore	Overruled. Cited for the proposition that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over appeals from orders made by a Judge under s 95 of the LPA. The present court held Hilborne was wrongly decided.
Hilborne v Law Society of Singapore	Judicial Committee of the Privy Council	Yes	[1977–‍1978] SLR(R) 342	United Kingdom	The Privy Council disagreed with the Court of Appeal on the issue of jurisdiction.
Wong Juan Swee v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR(R) 619	Singapore	Overruled. Cited for the proposition that the Court of Appeal could hear an appeal against a decision under ss 95, 96 and 97 of the LPA. The present court held Wong Juan Swee was wrongly decided.
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 934	Singapore	The case concerned a solicitor’s application to the High Court for leave to commence judicial review of certain decisions of a Disciplinary Tribunal while disciplinary proceedings were ongoing.
Wong Keng Leong Rayney v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 377	Singapore	The case concerned a solicitor’s application to the High Court for leave to commence judicial review of certain decisions of a Disciplinary Tribunal while disciplinary proceedings were ongoing.
Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican and another v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 1097	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that proceedings before the C3J were distinct from judicial review proceedings.
Whitehouse Holdings Pte Ltd v Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 485	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the existence of those provisions does not preclude the possibility of judicial review of the Council’s determination and the Inquiry Committee’s decision.
Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 837	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that under the statutory route, the Judge may similarly consider the legality of the decision-making process on the traditional grounds of judicial review and make the appropriate orders.
Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 4 SLR 858	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the Judge shall have full power to determine any question necessary to be determined for the purpose of doing justice in the case.
Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chun Hwee Allan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 859	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the leave of court in question is to be obtained before the complaint is referred to the Chairman, and the C3J would not have been convened at this time.
Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 825	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the “disciplinary jurisdiction” of the court was wide enough to include an advocate and solicitor without a practicing certificate.
Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 529	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute, and it is seised only of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute.
Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 106	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute, and it is seised only of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute.
Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 797	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over inferior tribunals is subsumed under the High Court’s original civil jurisdiction.
Sunseap Group Pte Ltd and others v Sun Electric Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 645	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that s 16(2) of the SCJA has been interpreted widely to include, for example, the jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Patents Act.
Re Griffin Securities Corp	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 219	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that s 16(2) of the SCJA has been interpreted widely to include, for example, the jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick	Court of Three Judges	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 68	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that because orders made by a disciplinary tribunal were not primarily punitive, considerations which would ordinarily weigh in mitigation of punishment had less effect on the exercise of the “disciplinary jurisdiction” than on sentences imposed in criminal cases.
Myers v Elman	House of Lords	Yes	[1940] AC 282	United Kingdom	The case concerned the jurisdiction to order costs against a solicitor for his or her conduct of the case, and the issue was whether such an order was an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court or some other jurisdiction, such as contempt jurisdiction.
Weston v Central Criminal Court Courts Administrator	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1977] QB 32 (CA)	United Kingdom	The case concerned the jurisdiction to order costs against a solicitor for his or her conduct of the case, and the issue was whether such an order was an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court or some other jurisdiction, such as contempt jurisdiction.
R & T Thew Ltd v Reeves (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] QB 1283 (CA)	United Kingdom	The case concerned the jurisdiction to order costs against a solicitor for his or her conduct of the case, and the issue was whether such an order was an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court or some other jurisdiction, such as contempt jurisdiction.
Ridehalgh v Horsefield	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] Ch 205 (CA)	United Kingdom	The case concerned the jurisdiction to order costs against a solicitor for his or her conduct of the case, and the issue was whether such an order was an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction of the court or some other jurisdiction, such as contempt jurisdiction.
Baxendale-Walker v Law Society	Court of Appeal of England and Wales	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 426	England and Wales	The Law Society sought to rely on the Baxendale-Walker principle to argue that no costs order should be made against it.
Re Singh Kalpanath	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 595	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that proceedings before the C3J were distinct from judicial review proceedings.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 85	Singapore	The case was cited for the proposition that proceedings before the C3J were distinct from judicial review proceedings.
Public Prosecutor v Iskandar bin Rahmat	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 310	Singapore	Mr Iskandar was convicted on both charges and sentenced him to suffer death.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 505	Singapore	Mr Iskandar’s appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed.
Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 40	Singapore	The Judge dismissed the application.
In re Echeles	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals	Yes	430 F.2d 347 (7th Cir. 1970)	United States	That passage seems to us to suggest that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was not referring to disciplinary proceedings generally, but to disbarment and suspension proceedings that arise from the “inherent power” of the courts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 59 r 8 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
ss 82 and 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 98(7) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 96 of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 300(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
ss 16(1) and 16(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 40 of 2019)	Singapore
s 29A of the SCJA	Singapore
s 3 of the SCJA	Singapore
s 2 of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 91A(1) of the LPA	Singapore
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act (Act 19 of 2008)	Singapore
s 82A of the LPA	Singapore
Legal Profession (Amendment) Act (Act 22 of 2018)	Singapore
s 85(8) of the LPA	Singapore
s 87(1) of the LPA	Singapore
s 97(4)(a) of the LPA	Singapore
s 98(8)(a) of the LPA	Singapore
s 95 of the LPA	Singapore
s 97 of the LPA	Singapore
s 98 of the LPA	Singapore
s 82A(5) of the LPA	Singapore
s 82A(15) of the LPA	Singapore
s 12(1) of the LPA	Singapore
s 85(4A) and 85(4B)	Singapore
ss 85(4C) and 85(4D)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Disciplinary proceedings
Right of appeal
Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
Legal Profession Act
Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Inquiry Committee
Council of the Law Society
Court of 3 Judges
Civil jurisdiction
Disciplinary jurisdiction

15.2 Keywords

Disciplinary
Appeal
Jurisdiction
Legal Profession
Singapore
Law Society

16. Subjects

Jurisdiction
Disciplinary Proceedings
Appeals
Legal Profession

17. Areas of Law

Legal Profession
Disciplinary proceedings
Courts and Jurisdiction
Disciplinary jurisdiction