CBB v Law Society: Mandatory Order for Legal Profession Act Complaint

CBB appealed against the High Court's decision regarding Originating Summons No 1382 of 2018, where he sought to set aside the Law Society of Singapore's decision not to seek leave to advance a complaint against a lawyer, Mr. L, under the Legal Profession Act. The High Court had quashed the Law Society's decision but declined to order them to apply for leave. The Court of Appeal allowed CBB's appeal for a mandatory order compelling the Law Society to apply for leave, but dismissed the appeal regarding costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, ordering the Law Society to apply for leave to proceed with a complaint against a lawyer.

1.7 Decision Date

28 January 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CBB	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Jamal Siddique Peer, Leong Woon Ho, Chia Wan Lu
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael, Lim Tat, Kang Hui Lin Jasmin

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Steven Chong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jamal Siddique Peer	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Leong Woon Ho	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Chia Wan Lu	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Lim Tat	Aequitas Law LLP
Kang Hui Lin Jasmin	Aequitas Law LLP

4. Facts

The appellant complained about a lawyer's conduct in assisting the appellant's mother.
The Law Society Council decided not to seek leave to act on the complaint due to time limitations and the appellant's personal capacity.
The High Court quashed the Council's decision, finding it irrational, but ordered reconsideration instead of mandating an application for leave.
The Council did not reconsider its decision almost eleven months after the High Court's order.
The appellant appealed, seeking a mandatory order compelling the Council to apply for leave and appealing the decision on costs.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for a mandatory order but dismissed the appeal regarding costs in OS 1382.

5. Formal Citations

CBB v Law Society of Singapore, Civil Appeal No 43 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 6

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-01-01	Decision in Re BKR issued
2018-01-30	British Virgin Islands proceedings concluded by consent order
2018-03-22	CBB received Mr L’s professional fees invoices
2018-01-01	Originating Summons No 1382 of 2018 commenced
2020-01-03	High Court Judge held that the Council had acted irrationally
2020-12-01	Arguments heard in the Court of Appeal
2021-01-29	Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in respect of the mandatory order but dismissed it in respect of the Judge’s disposal on costs

7. Legal Issues

Irrationality in Decision-Making
- Outcome: The court found that the Council had acted irrationally in its decision-making process.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to consider relevant factors
  - Taking into account irrelevant factors
Mandatory Order
- Outcome: The court granted a mandatory order requiring the Council to apply for leave pursuant to s 85(4C)(a) of the LPA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Appropriateness of mandatory order
  - Exceptions to the rule against mandating performance in a particular manner
Costs in Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal against the Judge’s decision on costs in OS 1382, but awarded costs of the appeal to the appellant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of Baxendale-Walker principle
  - Gross dereliction of duty
  - Bad faith

8. Remedies Sought

Mandatory Order
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

Judicial Review
Regulatory Law

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re BKR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 81	Singapore	Cited for the facts pertaining to Mr. L’s involvement in setting up the trust and effecting the transfer of assets belonging to the appellant’s mother, and the appellant's mother's mental capacity.
CBB v Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 293	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the disciplinary framework in Part VII of the LPA exists to maintain the high standards and good reputation of the legal profession.
AUR and another v AUT and others	Singapore District Court	Yes	[2012] SGDC 489	Singapore	Cited for aspects of Mr L’s precise involvement in setting up the trust and effecting the transfer of assets belonging to the appellant’s mother.
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 797	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that costs in judicial review proceedings follow the event.
Baxendale-Walker v Law Society	Unknown	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 426	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that no costs should be ordered against a public body carrying out a public regulatory function.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Cited for accepting the Baxendale-Walker principle.
Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the principle that two reasonable persons could quite ‘perfectly reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable’.
City Development Ltd v Chief Assessor	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 150	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court, in judicial review proceedings, reviews an administrator’s decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision.
Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment Authority	High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 92	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court, in judicial review proceedings, reviews an administrator’s decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision.
R v Justices of Kingston	Unknown	Yes	(1902) 86 LTD 589	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court does not by mandamus direct justices or any public body or anyone else upon whom a duty is cast, how and in what manner they are to perform their duty.
Re San Development Co’s Application	High Court	Yes	[1971-1973] SLR(R) 203	Singapore	Cited for applying the principle in Justices of Kingston.
Gobi a/l Avedian and another v Attorney-General and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 883	Singapore	Cited for upholding the principle in Justices of Kingston.
Ahmad Kasim bin Adam (suing as administrator of the estate of Adam bin Haji Anwar, deceased) v Singapore Land Authority and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 4 SLR 1447	Singapore	Cited for upholding the principle in Justices of Kingston.
Axis Law Corp v Intellectual Property Office of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 554	Singapore	Cited for upholding the principle in Justices of Kingston.
C v Comptroller of Income Tax	Federal Court	Yes	[1965-1967] SLR(R) 626	Singapore	Cited as an exception to the rule in Justices of Kingston, where a mandamus in specific terms was the only effective and expeditious remedy open.
Re Application of Leo Boh Boey	High Court	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 434	Singapore	Cited as an exception to the rule in Justices of Kingston, where an order of mandamus was granted directing the Commissioner to assess and make an order on the amount of compensation payable.
Re Application by Ramakrishnan Chakara Padayachi	High Court	Yes	[1981-1982] SLR(R) 238	Singapore	Cited as an exception to the rule in Justices of Kingston, where an order of mandamus was granted directing the Commissioner to exercise in a particular manner the power conferred on him by s 24 of the WCA.
Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 226	Singapore	Cited as an exception to the rule in Justices of Kingston, where an order of mandamus was granted directing the Disciplinary Committee to reinstate, hear and investigate all six charges.
Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 998	Singapore	Cited for affirming the High Court’s decision in Re Lim Chor Pee, ex parte Law Society of Singapore [1985-1986] SLR(R) 226.
R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte Lonrho Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1989] 1 WLR 525	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court was not entitled to “convert [a] discretion into a duty and [ignore] the expertise of the Director of Fair Trading”.
Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food	House of Lords	Yes	[1968] AC 997	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that, in exercising his discretion, the Minister had taken into account irrelevant matters and omitted relevant matters from consideration.
R v Derby Justices, Ex parte Kooner and others	Divisional Court	Yes	[1971] 1 QB 147	United Kingdom	Cited for issuing a mandatory order requiring that a duty be carried out in a particular manner.
Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) v Royal Insurance Australia Ltd	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1994) 126 ALR 1	Australia	Cited for the principle that “[w]hen the power exists and the circumstances call for the fulfilment of a purpose for which the power is conferred, but the repository of the power declines to exercise the power, mandamus is the appropriate remedy …
KL Dowling & Co v Employee Relations Commission	Victoria Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 VR 251	Australia	Cited for the principle that the court may itself, in an unusual case like the present, direct by its order how the discretion is to be exercised.
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 779	Singapore	Cited for the principle that “courts and judges are not the best-equipped to scrutinise decisions which are laden with issues of policy or security or which call for polycentric political considerations”.
Wang v Commissioner of Inland Revenue	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 1 WLR 1286	Unknown	Cited for the principle that the court will assess whether the delay is “for a considered reason and not in consequence of neglect, oversight or perversity”.
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans	Unknown	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 1155	Unknown	Cited for the need for constant supervision as a reason for refusing a mandatory order.
R v Paddington Valuation Officer Ex p Peachey Property Corporation Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1966] 1 QB 380	Unknown	Cited for the public inconvenience that would be occasioned by making such an order as a reason for refusing a mandatory order.
Bristol and North Somerset Railway Co, Re	Unknown	Yes	(1877) 3 QBD 10	Unknown	Cited for the impossibility of carrying out the duty as a reason for refusing a mandatory order.
R v Bristol Corporation ex p Hendy	Unknown	Yes	[1974] 1 WLR 498	Unknown	Cited for the limited public resources available to discharge the duty as a reason for refusing a mandatory order.
R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex parte Bennett	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 42	Unknown	Cited for the principle that directing the authority to undertake specific actions may, in exceptional cases, further the purpose of sound public administration and “ensure that executive action is exercised responsibly and as Parliament intended”.
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 a decision-maker does not normally bear a duty to furnish reasons.
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 301	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a decision-maker does not normally bear a duty to furnish reasons.
R v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Ex parte Argyll Group Plc	Unknown	Yes	[1986] 1 WLR 763	Unknown	Cited for the need for sound public administration in assessing the appropriate remedy to be granted where any of the grounds of judicial review have been established.
Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 1179	Singapore	Cited for the costs framework.
Lim Hong Kheng v PP	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 358	Singapore	Cited for the analogy drawn from other statutes conferring a discretion to grant extensions of time.
Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong	High Court	Yes	[1985-1986] SLR(R) 1075	Singapore	Cited for the analogy drawn from other statutes conferring a discretion to grant extensions of time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Advocates and Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1963 (GN No S 98/1963)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Income Tax Ordinance (Cap 166, 1955 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Workmen’s Compensation Act (Act 25 of 1975)	Singapore
Land Acquisition Act 1966 (Act 41 of 1966)	Singapore
Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act 1985 (c 6) (UK)	United Kingdom
Fair Trading Act 1973 (c 41) (UK)	United Kingdom
Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 (c 47) (UK)	United Kingdom
Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c 80) (UK)	United Kingdom
Stamps Act 1958 (No 6375 of 1958) (Vic)	Australia
Industrial Relations Act 1979 (No 114 of 1979) (Vic)	Australia
Employee Relations Act 1992 (No 83 of 1992) (Vic)	Australia
Administrative Law Act 1978 (No 9234 of 1978) (Vic)	Australia
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Mandatory Order
Judicial Review
Legal Profession Act
Law Society Council
Leave of Court
Disciplinary Proceedings
Irrationality
Public Duty
Baxendale-Walker Principle

15.2 Keywords

Mandatory Order
Judicial Review
Legal Profession Act
Law Society
Singapore

16. Subjects

Administrative Law
Civil Procedure
Legal Profession

17. Areas of Law

Administrative Law
Civil Procedure
Legal Profession Act