Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua: Appeal on Disciplinary Proceedings under Legal Profession Act
Andrew Loh Der Ming appealed against a decision regarding disciplinary proceedings against Koh Tien Hua, his former lawyer. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision made pursuant to s 97 of the Legal Profession Act. The court dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the appeal, holding that it does have jurisdiction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Respondent’s application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a judge's decision under s 97 of the Legal Profession Act. The Court of Appeal held that it has jurisdiction to hear such appeals.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew Loh Der Ming | Appellant, Applicant | Individual | Application to strike out appeal dismissed | Neutral | Chen Kok Siang Joseph |
| Koh Tien Hua | Respondent | Individual | Application to strike out appeal dismissed | Lost | Narayanan Sreenivasan, Ranita Yogeeswaran |
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 |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chen Kok Siang Joseph | Joseph Chen & Co |
| Narayanan Sreenivasan | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Ranita Yogeeswaran | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Koh represented Mr. Loh in divorce proceedings from 7 July 2015 to 12 August 2015.
- Mr. Loh filed a complaint against Mr. Koh with the Law Society on 12 May 2016.
- A Disciplinary Tribunal found Mr. Koh guilty of two charges but determined no cause of sufficient gravity existed.
- Mr. Loh applied for a review of the Disciplinary Tribunal’s determination pursuant to s 97 of the LPA.
- The Judge found that two additional charges had been made out, but agreed that there was no cause of sufficient gravity to warrant referral to the C3J.
- Mr. Loh filed the present appeal on 21 December 2019.
- Mr. Koh applied to strike out the appeal pursuant to O 57 r 16(10) of the Rules of Court.
5. Formal Citations
- Loh Der Ming Andrew v Koh Tien Hua, Civil Appeal No 227 of 2019 (Summons No 5 of 2020), [2021] SGCA 2
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Koh called to the Bar | |
| Mr Koh represented Mr Loh in divorce proceedings | |
| Pre-trial hearing where Mr Koh allegedly made misrepresentations | |
| Mr Koh ceased representing Mr Loh | |
| Mr Loh filed a complaint against Mr Koh with the Law Society | |
| Inquiry Committee constituted | |
| Mr Loh applied to a judge for appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal | |
| Disciplinary Tribunal constituted | |
| Mr Loh filed the present appeal | |
| Mr Koh applied to strike out the appeal | |
| Parties directed to file further written submissions | |
| Parties filed supplementary submissions | |
| Hearing of the parties | |
| Arguments heard in Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it does have jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of a judge pursuant to s 97 of the Legal Profession Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of s 29A(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Whether disciplinary jurisdiction is part of civil jurisdiction
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Outcome: The court considered the correctness, legality, or propriety of the Disciplinary Tribunal's determination.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Review of Disciplinary Tribunal's determination
- Grounds for disciplinary action
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of Disciplinary Tribunal’s determination
- Order directing the Law Society to make an application under section 98 of the Legal Profession Act
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Misconduct
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Disciplinary Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA [1] | Singapore | Held that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision of a judge made pursuant to s 96 of the Legal Profession Act, disagreeing with the earlier decision in Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [2011] 2 SLR 1279 | Singapore | The court initially considered that it did not have jurisdiction over an appeal against a decision of a judge made pursuant to s 96 of the Legal Profession Act. This decision was later disagreed with in Iskandar bin Rahmat v Law Society of Singapore. |
| Loh Der Ming Andrew v Law Society of Singapore | N/A | No | [2018] 3 SLR 837 | Singapore | The judge allowed Mr. Loh's application seeking an order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to s 96 of the LPA. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Set out the two threshold requirements for the Court of Appeal to be seised of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. |
| Deepak Sharma v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | No | [2016] 4 SLR 192 | Singapore | Referred to by Mr Chen regarding the scope of judicial review over proceedings under the LPA. |
| Mohd Sadique bin Ibrahim Marican and another v Law Society of Singapore | N/A | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited in Iskandar at [32] and in this judgment at [24] for the proposition that proceedings under s 97 of the LPA are akin to judicial review proceedings. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2020] 4 SLR 858 | Singapore | Cited in Iskandar at [32] and in this judgment at [24] for the proposition that proceedings under s 97 of the LPA are akin to judicial review proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 57 r 16(10) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 97 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 96 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 2 | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 97(4) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 91A(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 98(7) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 16(2) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Jurisdiction
- Civil jurisdiction
- Judge
- Law Society
- Cause of sufficient gravity
- Review application
15.2 Keywords
- Legal Profession Act
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Legal Ethics
- Civil Procedure
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Courts and Jurisdiction
- Disciplinary jurisdiction