Re Wong Wai Loong Sean: Admission of Advocates and Solicitors - Cheating in Examinations

The Singapore High Court heard applications from Sean Wong Wai Loong, Ong Jia Yi Joleen, Lim Zi Yi, and Annabelle Au Jia En to withdraw their applications for admission as advocates and solicitors after they were found to have cheated in the 2020 Part B examinations. The court, presided over by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, allowed the withdrawals subject to specific conditions, including a period during which they cannot reapply, emphasizing the importance of reflection, learning, and growth to address character issues.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications to withdraw admission allowed subject to conditions.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court addresses applications to withdraw admission after cheating in Part B exams, emphasizing reflection and rehabilitation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sean Wong Wai LoongApplicantIndividualApplication to withdraw admission allowedWon
Ong Jia Yi JoleenApplicantIndividualApplication to withdraw admission allowedWon
Lim Zi YiApplicantIndividualApplication to withdraw admission allowedWon
Annabelle Au Jia EnApplicantIndividualApplication to withdraw admission allowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Goh Pek SanP S Goh & Co
Devadas NaiduMetropolitan Law Corporation
Shobna ChandranTan Rajah & Cheah
Ng Jie Zhen AmyTan Rajah & Cheah
Thaddaeus Aaron Tan Yong ZhongTan Rajah & Cheah
Peter Ong Lip ChengPeter Ong Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Sean Wong Wai Loong copied another candidate's answer during the Mediation Advocacy paper.
  2. Sean Wong Wai Loong failed to disclose the cheating incident in his initial admissions affidavit.
  3. Ong Jia Yi Joleen, Lim Zi Yi, and Annabelle Au Jia En communicated during the Mediation and Ethics papers.
  4. Ong Jia Yi Joleen was the primary instigator of the cheating incidents.
  5. The SILE denied passes to the applicants in various papers due to cheating.
  6. The applicants were allowed to retake the papers they failed.
  7. The applicants did not fully disclose the circumstances of their wrongdoing in their initial admissions affidavits.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and other matters, , [2022] SGHC 237

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sean Wong Wai Loong sat for the Mediation Advocacy paper.
Sean Wong Wai Loong submitted his Mediation Advocacy paper script at 12.06pm.
Sean Wong Wai Loong received a copy of another candidate’s script by email at 12.11pm.
Sean Wong Wai Loong reuploaded and resubmitted his edited script at 12.14pm.
Ethics paper held.
Ong Jia Yi Joleen interviewed by the SILE.
Sean Wong Wai Loong interviewed by the SILE.
SILE sent letters to Ong Jia Yi Joleen, Lim Zi Yi and Annabelle Au Jia En inviting them to show cause.
Sean Wong Wai Loong was notified that he had passed his 2021 resitting of the Part B examinations.
Sean Wong Wai Loong filed AAS 100.
Sean Wong Wai Loong emailed the SILE to request its standard certificate.
Media coverage of Re CTA and other matters.
Sean Wong Wai Loong filed his admissions affidavit.
The SILE contacted Sean Wong Wai Loong and asked that he file a further affidavit disclosing the fact that disciplinary action had been taken against him.
Sean Wong Wai Loong filed a supplementary affidavit setting out all events relevant to his cheating in the 2020 Mediation paper.
Ong Jia Yi Joleen, Lim Zi Yi and Annabelle Au Jia En were issued a Notice under Rule 12(5) of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011.
The AG’s Chambers wrote to Sean Wong Wai Loong asking that he explain, in a further affidavit, his failure to make such disclosure.
Sean Wong Wai Loong filed an affidavit providing his explanation.
Case management conference held.
The SILE informed the court that the SDC had prepared a report, but that there were confidentiality concerns.
Hearing for the withdrawal applications.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Suitability for Admission to the Bar
    • Outcome: The court determined that the applicants needed to demonstrate their suitability for admission by addressing character issues revealed by their misconduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Cheating in examinations
      • Non-disclosure of misconduct
      • Lack of candour

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Withdrawal of application for admission as advocate and solicitor

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Admission to the Bar

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Tay Quan Li LeonHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 133SingaporeCited for the principle that the time spent outside the profession is for reflection, learning, and growth, not punishment.
Re CTA and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 87SingaporeCited in relation to the media coverage of cheating acts of candidates.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Admission
  • Advocate
  • Solicitor
  • Cheating
  • Part B Examinations
  • Character
  • Disclosure
  • Remorse
  • Rehabilitation
  • Undertaking

15.2 Keywords

  • admission
  • advocate
  • solicitor
  • cheating
  • examinations
  • legal profession
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admission to the Bar95
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility85
Disciplinary Proceedings70
Professional conduct60
Civil Practice30
Criminal Law20
Evidence10
Contract Law10
Wills and Probate5

16. Subjects

  • Legal Ethics
  • Professional Responsibility
  • Regulatory Compliance