Law Society of Singapore
Law Society of Singapore is a statutory board in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 148 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 194 counsels. Through 85 law firms. Their track record shows a 65.5% success rate in resolved cases. They have been involved in 35 complex cases, representing 23.6% of their total caseload.
Legal Representation
Law Society of Singapore has been represented by 85 law firms and 194 counsels.
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Law Society of Singapore's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 3.0
- Complex Cases
- 35 (23.6%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
| Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 153.5 parties avg |
| Neutral | 234.3 parties avg |
| Other | 12.0 parties avg |
| Partial | 122.4 parties avg |
| Won | 972.7 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
| Year | Cases |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 17.0 parties avg |
| 2024 | 94.8 parties avg |
| 2023 | 42.0 parties avg |
| 2022 | 103.6 parties avg |
| 2021 | 62.5 parties avg |
| 2020 | 62.5 parties avg |
| 2019 | 52.8 parties avg |
| 2018 | 23.0 parties avg |
| 2017 | 72.0 parties avg |
| 2016 | 37.0 parties avg |
| 2015 | 33.0 parties avg |
| 2014 | 33.3 parties avg |
| 2013 | 72.1 parties avg |
| 2012 | 63.5 parties avg |
| 2011 | 62.7 parties avg |
| 2010 | 52.0 parties avg |
| 2009 | 36.3 parties avg |
| 2008 | 62.8 parties avg |
| 2007 | 142.5 parties avg |
| 2006 | 112.3 parties avg |
| 2005 | 92.6 parties avg |
| 2004 | 92.7 parties avg |
| 2003 | 52.8 parties avg |
| 2002 | 36.0 parties avg |
| 2001 | 32.0 parties avg |
| 2000 | 23.5 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Law Society of Singapore's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
| Outcome Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 15(10.1%) |
| Neutral | 23(15.5%) |
| Other | 1(0.7%) |
| Partial | 12(8.1%) |
| Won | 97(65.5%) |
Monetary Outcomes
| Currency | Average |
|---|---|
| SGD | 2,611.6687 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
| Year | Total Cases |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 1 1 |
| 2024 | 3 225 |
| 2023 | 2 22 |
| 2022 | 2 37 |
| 2021 | 5 11121 |
| 2020 | 3 213 |
| 2019 | 3 113 |
| 2018 | 2 11 |
| 2017 | 2 16 |
| 2016 | 2 12 |
| 2015 | 2 12 |
| 2014 | 1 3 |
| 2013 | 3 124 |
| 2012 | 3 114 |
| 2011 | 4 1113 |
| 2010 | 3 113 |
| 2009 | 2 12 |
| 2008 | 3 114 |
| 2007 | 3 239 |
| 2006 | 3 218 |
| 2005 | 2 18 |
| 2004 | 2 27 |
| 2003 | 2 14 |
| 2002 | 3 111 |
| 2001 | 1 3 |
| 2000 | 2 11 |
Case History
Displaying all 148 cases
| Case | Role | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
15 Jan 2025 | Other | WonObjection to the admission application was successful. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
07 Nov 2024 | Respondent | WonAppeals by Theodoros Kassimatis KC and Edward Fitzgerald KC dismissed. |
27 Oct 2024 | Respondent | PartialThe Law Society objected to the admission, and the court imposed a Minimum Exclusionary Period, aligning with their suggested range. |
24 Sep 2024 | Respondent | WonAppeal against the Preliminary Objection dismissed. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (SGD) is assumed. |
01 Sep 2024 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action against Mr. Seah and Mr. Mohan was successful. |
28 Aug 2024 | Applicant | PartialSucceeded on two of four charges; costs of OA 14 fixed at $12,000 inclusive of disbursements to be paid by the respondent to the Law Society (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
19 Aug 2024 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore took the view that a minimum reinstatement interval of between two and three years would be sufficient in the circumstances (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
01 May 2024 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was invited to address the court on the issue of the duty of candour owed by an A&S and by applicants for admission. |
21 Mar 2024 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore's objection to the applicant's admission was upheld. |
29 Jan 2024 | Respondent | WonApplications for ad hoc admission were dismissed. |
10 Dec 2023 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for sanctions was granted; Mr. Cheng was suspended for six months and ordered to pay costs of $12,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
06 Nov 2023 | Applicant | LostThe Law Society's application for sanctions against Mr. de Souza was dismissed. |
09 May 2023 | Applicant | WonApplication by the Law Society of Singapore allowed; Mr. Hanam suspended for 9 months and ordered to pay costs of $32,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
25 Apr 2023 | Applicant | LostThe court dismissed the application for clarification, holding that Mr. Ravi's voluntary undertaking did not constitute a suspension under the Legal Profession Act. |
04 Sep 2022 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was allowed, with costs awarded in their favor at $28,000 all-in (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
02 Aug 2022 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to sanction the respondent was allowed. Costs fixed in the aggregate sum of $18,000 in favour of the applicant being the costs for OS 1 and also for C3J/SUM 1/2022 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
28 Jul 2022 | Applicant | WonThe Respondent was suspended from practice for three years and ordered to bear the costs of the Law Society. |
05 Jun 2022 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society objected to the Sealing Order Application but took no position on the Withdrawal Application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
18 May 2022 | Applicant | WonThe respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. Costs of OS 3, SUM 1 and the DT proceedings awarded to the Law Society, fixed at $13,000 together with disbursements of $4,464.02 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
17 May 2022 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll was granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
26 Apr 2022 | Other | NeutralAttorney-General’s application to rescind the redaction and sealing orders allowed. |
17 Apr 2022 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore agreed with the Attorney General's proposal to adjourn the applications. |
06 Apr 2022 | Appellant | WonThe Law Society's appeal was successful; Mr. Thirumurthy was suspended for nine months and ordered to pay costs of $5,000 and disbursements of $1,200 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
13 Mar 2022 | Appellant | WonThe Law Society's appeal was allowed, affirming the Council's determination to dismiss the First Complaint. |
18 Nov 2021 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore successfully defended the appeal against the dismissal of the complaint. |
19 Sep 2021 | Respondent | NeutralNo objections to the application. |
24 Aug 2021 | Applicant | OtherThe court set aside the determination of the disciplinary tribunal and directed the Law Society to apply for the appointment of a new disciplinary tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint against the respondent. |
20 Apr 2021 | Defendant | PartialOrder directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal in relation to the First and Fourth Complaints. |
28 Jan 2021 | Respondent | PartialAppeal dismissed in part; mandatory order granted. Liable for costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant, fixed at $10,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
07 Jan 2021 | Respondent | LostThe Law Society's application to strike out the appeal was dismissed. |
19 Nov 2020 | Applicant | PartialThe court found the respondent guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor, but did not find an implied retainer. The respondent was suspended for 15 months, less than the striking off order sought. |
18 Aug 2020 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was allowed. The Disciplinary Tribunal's reprimand was set aside, and the respondent was found guilty on the primary charge. Costs of the review fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
18 Jun 2020 | Respondent | LostApplication granted; Law Society directed to apply for appointment of Disciplinary Tribunals. |
18 Mar 2020 | Respondent | WonThe court determined that the Respondent should not be required to pay the Applicant's costs. |
07 Jan 2020 | Applicant | WonDetermination set aside; new Disciplinary Tribunal to be appointed. |
02 Jan 2020 | Respondent | LostThe decision of the Council not to apply for leave to refer the pre 17 April 2012 events to the Chairman is quashed, and a mandatory order is granted directing the Council to reconsider its decision. |
18 Nov 2019 | Respondent | LostApplication for reinstatement to the Roll of advocates and solicitors allowed, subject to conditions. |
17 Oct 2019 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was involved in the proceedings, but no specific outcome was assigned to them. |
28 Apr 2019 | Applicant | WonThe Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant costs in the aggregate sum of $6,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
08 Apr 2019 | Applicant | WonThe Court found the respondent's conduct was grossly improper and unbefitting an advocate and solicitor. The appropriate sanction was a term of suspension of three years, and costs in the aggregate sum of S$10,000, inclusive of disbursements, to be paid by the respondent to the applicant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
21 Jan 2019 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for an order to strike off Jaya Anil Kumar was granted. Costs and disbursements of $5,000 to be paid by Ms. Kumar to the Law Society (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
30 Jul 2018 | Applicant | WonApplication granted; Respondent suspended from practice for 15 months and ordered to bear the costs of the application fixed at $3,000, together with disbursements fixed at $400 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
24 Jan 2018 | Defendant | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was a non-party providing submissions to the court. |
08 Nov 2017 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society was awarded costs of $7,000 inclusive of disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 Oct 2017 | Respondent | PartialApplication dismissed in part, concerning the complaint that Koh had placed himself in a position of conflict of interest. Disbursements to be paid to the Applicant (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
21 Aug 2017 | Defendant | WonThe court dismissed the plaintiff's application. |
12 Jul 2017 | Respondent | WonAppeal upheld; Appellant to pay costs to the Respondent. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
26 Jun 2017 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike Udeh Kumar off the roll of advocates and solicitors was granted. Costs (including disbursements) to be paid to the Law Society in each of the Originating Summonses and the two hearings before the Tribunal. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
15 Mar 2017 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed in favor of the Law Society of Singapore. |
19 Feb 2017 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for sanctions against the Respondent was granted. |
27 Nov 2016 | Other | WonThe Law Society of Singapore opposed the application for ad hoc admission, and the application was dismissed. |
28 Aug 2016 | Other | LostOpposed the application for ad hoc admission. |
05 May 2016 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was suspended for two months. Costs of the application were awarded to the Law Society, to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
25 Nov 2015 | Respondent | WonThe application for an order directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal was dismissed. |
07 Jul 2015 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore opposed the application. |
28 Apr 2015 | Applicant | WonLaw Society's application for leave to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal was granted. |
04 Nov 2014 | Respondent | WonSuccessfully resisted the application for ad hoc admission. |
24 Sep 2014 | Plaintiff | WonJudgment for the Law Society; Respondent suspended from practice for a total of five years (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
15 May 2014 | Appellant | WonThe appeal was allowed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Sep 2013 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society did not object to the application, subject to certain conditions being imposed. |
18 Sep 2013 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore's opposition to the application was upheld. |
17 Jul 2013 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for an order to sanction the respondent was successful. The respondent was suspended from practice for six months and ordered to pay costs. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) |
27 Jun 2013 | Applicant | PartialThe Law Society succeeded in two of the three charges against the Respondent. |
21 Apr 2013 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was successful; the respondent was found dishonest and ordered to be struck off the roll. Costs were awarded to the Law Society on a standard basis, to be taxed if not agreed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
24 Jan 2013 | Defendant | WonApplication dismissed with costs fixed at $4,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
14 Jan 2013 | Applicant | PartialThe court partially upheld the charges against the respondent. |
25 Nov 2012 | Applicant | WonRespondents suspended for three months and ordered to pay costs. |
20 Nov 2012 | Respondent | NeutralDid not oppose the application but proposed conditions for reinstatement. |
14 Nov 2012 | Respondent | LostLaw Society of Singapore opposed the application for ad hoc admission. |
02 Oct 2012 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action against the respondent was granted, resulting in his suspension. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
06 Jun 2012 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore successfully defended against the application to direct it to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal. |
15 Jan 2012 | Applicant | WonApplication granted; costs of the proceedings before the court to be borne by all four respondents, with the costs of proceedings below pertaining to the fourth respondent to be taxed if not agreed and to be borne by him. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
11 Dec 2011 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore raised no objections in relation to the Applicant’s application and agreed that the legal issues in the various proceedings were of sufficient difficulty and complexity to warrant the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the Applicant’s admission. |
08 Nov 2011 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was successful, and the Respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll. No order as to costs was made. |
06 Oct 2011 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was fined $50,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
21 Aug 2011 | Plaintiff | WonThe court ordered that the defendant be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors and awarded costs to the Law Society. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
06 Apr 2011 | Appellant | LostAppeal dismissed; each party will pay its own costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
19 Jan 2011 | Applicant | PartialThe Law Society's application was successful against Zulkifli and Sadique, but not against Anand. |
30 Aug 2010 | Defendant | PartialThe court affirmed the Inquiry Committee’s finding that there was no agreement on fees between the plaintiff and Mr Arul, but directed the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to look into two matters. The court also ordered the Law Society to pay 50% of the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. (Currency assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore). |
24 May 2010 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for an order that the Respondent be made to suffer such punishment as provided for in section 83(1) of the Act was allowed. |
12 May 2010 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society's submission that s 91A of the LPA restricts the right of a solicitor to apply to the court for a quashing order was upheld; costs to be paid by the applicants to the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
06 May 2010 | Applicant | LostThe Law Society's application was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
03 Mar 2010 | Applicant | WonApplication to make absolute an order to show cause was allowed. The Respondent was suspended from practice for two years. No order as to costs was made. |
03 Dec 2009 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was allowed to be represented before the court and make known the reasons for its concerns. |
25 Aug 2009 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society's position against the application was upheld as the application was dismissed. |
12 Aug 2009 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for Uthayasurian Sidambaram to show cause was granted. |
07 Oct 2008 | Applicant | WonApplication by the Law Society of Singapore allowed. |
07 Oct 2008 | Applicant | PartialThe Law Society's application was successful in part, with the respondent found guilty of the first charge (gross overcharging) but not the fourth charge (failure to disclose interest). The respondent was suspended from practice for six months. |
07 Jul 2008 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for an order to show cause was granted, and the respondents were prohibited from applying for a practicing certificate for a specified period. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
11 May 2008 | Defendant | WonThe Law Society successfully defended against the application for a Disciplinary Committee to be appointed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
28 Feb 2008 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society initially objected but withdrew its objection after the applicant agreed to certain conditions. No order as to costs was made as neither the Attorney-General nor the Law Society had sought costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Jan 2008 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society’s application was granted and the respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll of the advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The respondent was also ordered to pay the costs of the Disciplinary Committee proceedings, fixed at $2,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
03 Dec 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for the respondent to show cause was successful. |
03 Dec 2007 | Applicant | WonShow cause order made absolute; respondent suspended from practice for 12 months and ordered to pay costs (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 Oct 2007 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society also objected to the admission of the QC. |
19 Sep 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay $5,000 for costs of the disciplinary proceedings below in addition to the disbursements incurred by the Law Society. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
06 Sep 2007 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society did not object to the application but furnished a report to the court. |
05 Sep 2007 | Respondent | WonAppeal dismissed with costs and the usual consequential orders. Assumed SGD as the jurisdiction is Singapore. |
29 Jul 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll of solicitors. |
05 Jul 2007 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society did not object to the application. |
25 Jun 2007 | Applicant | WonApplication granted; respondent suspended from practice for two years (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 May 2007 | Applicant | LostLeave granted to the Law Society to withdraw the originating summons with costs to the respondent fixed at $150 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore), but no order as to costs for the hearing before the Disciplinary Committee. |
22 Mar 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted. No order for costs was made. |
21 Mar 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action against the respondents was granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
12 Feb 2007 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application for disciplinary action against the respondent was granted. |
22 Jan 2007 | Respondent | LostThe Law Society was ordered to pay the applicant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
29 Nov 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to suspend the respondent was granted. |
26 Nov 2006 | Defendant | PartialThe court affirmed the Law Society's determination in relation to the complaints relating to breach of rr 35(c) and (e) and the fixed deposit issue but was ordered to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a disciplinary committee in relation to the complaint concerning the issue of the invoice for $612,300. |
07 Nov 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society of Singapore's application was successful, resulting in the respondent's suspension. |
26 Oct 2006 | Respondent | LostThe application for a quashing order was granted against the Law Society of Singapore. |
04 Oct 2006 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society successfully opposed the application for judicial review. |
26 Sep 2006 | Applicant | WonApplication to make final an order to show cause was granted. |
20 Aug 2006 | Applicant | LostThe Law Society's application was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. |
20 Aug 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's show cause action against the respondent was successful. |
18 Jul 2006 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore successfully opposed the application (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
23 Apr 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll of advocates and solicitors was granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 Jan 2006 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll of advocates and solicitors was granted. |
22 Dec 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause against the respondent was granted. |
06 Oct 2005 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was present in court. |
29 Sep 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to show cause was granted, and the respondent was ordered to be struck off the roll and to pay the costs of the Law Society. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
25 Sep 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was granted, and the respondent was suspended from practice for four years and ordered to pay costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
11 Sep 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll was granted. The respondent was also ordered to pay the cost of the proceedings. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
17 Aug 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society successfully showed cause for disciplinary action against the respondent. |
14 Jul 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to show cause was granted, and the respondent was suspended from practice for two years. (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore) |
16 May 2005 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll was granted. |
06 Jan 2005 | Applicant | WonApplication by the Law Society to make absolute an order to show cause was granted. |
08 Nov 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make the show cause order absolute was granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
07 Nov 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted. |
28 Oct 2004 | Other | NeutralAgreed that the case was not of sufficient difficulty and complexity to require the admission of a Queen’s Counsel. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
06 Sep 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make the show cause order absolute was granted, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
16 Aug 2004 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society did not object to the application. No order as to costs was made. |
14 Apr 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted. |
04 Mar 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
22 Feb 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to strike the respondent off the roll of advocates and solicitors was granted. Costs of the proceedings were awarded to the Law Society (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
22 Feb 2004 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the order to show cause was granted. |
20 Aug 2003 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore successfully opposed the application to admit Nigel John Seed QC. |
12 Aug 2003 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application to make absolute the show cause order was granted. |
29 Jun 2003 | Applicant | WonOrder to show cause made absolute; Quan ordered to be struck off the rolls. No monetary amount awarded. |
12 Mar 2003 | Respondent | NeutralThe prescribed fee is $1,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
12 Feb 2003 | Applicant | WonThe Law Society's application was successful, and Mr. Ganesan was suspended from practice for three years. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
07 Jul 2002 | Other | LostThe Law Society of Singapore opposed the application, which was ultimately allowed. |
17 Apr 2002 | Respondent | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was served with the application and provided their views to the court. The outcome of this application does not directly impact the Law Society of Singapore. |
30 Jan 2002 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society of Singapore's objection to the application was upheld, and the application was dismissed. |
21 Oct 2001 | Applicant | WonApplication to utilize the Compensation Fund to settle a loan was allowed under section 56 of the Trustee Act, subject to conditions. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
05 Jul 2001 | Respondent | WonThe Law Society objected to the application, and the court dismissed the application. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
03 Jan 2001 | Applicant | WonThe court ordered that the respondent be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors of the Supreme Court. |
04 May 2000 | Other | NeutralThe Law Society of Singapore was a party to the application. |
12 Mar 2000 | Applicant | WonThe court ordered the respondent to be struck off the rolls and to bear the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee. |