ANDREW LOH DER MING v THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE

ANDREW LOH DER MING v THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE

The court found a prima facie case of sufficient gravity warranting formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of (1) allegations that Mr Koh knowingly or recklessly misled the court by making at least three untrue statements at the 27 July 2015 hearing, and (2) allegations that Mr Koh acted against...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] SGHC 256
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Loh Der Ming Andrew; Respondent/defendant: Law Society of Singapore
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
17 October 2017
Case Number
HC/OS 350/2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons No 350 of 2017 Under S 96 Legal Profession Act / Judgment (application Under S 96)
Outcome
Application granted in part: Court directed Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate two heads (misleading the court; acting against instructions and concealment). Application dismissed as to conflict of interest head.
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Misconduct, Conflict of Interest, Natural Justice, Duty of Candour to the Court, Legal Profession Act S96 Procedure
Source Language
english
Legal Profession Administrative Law Family Law Professional Discipline Disciplinary Proceedings Misconduct Conflict of Interest Natural Justice +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loh Der Ming Andrew

Applicant/plaintiff

Law Society of Singapore

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons No 350 of 2017 Under S 96 Legal Profession Act / Judgment (application Under S 96)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a prima facie case warranting referral to a Disciplinary Tribunal for: (a) knowingly misleading the court; (b) acting against client instructions and concealing consent order; (c) conflict of interest

Ratio Decidendi

The court found a prima facie case of sufficient gravity warranting formal investigation by a Disciplinary Tribunal in respect of (1) allegations that Mr Koh knowingly or recklessly misled the court by making at least three untrue statements at the 27 July 2015 hearing, and (2) allegations that Mr Koh acted against the Applicant's express instructions by conceding particulars (Consent Order) and then failed to disclose and/or deliberately suppressed that fact and its effect on appeal viability; the conflict of interest allegation did not meet the prima facie threshold and was dismissed. The Law Society was directed to apply to the Chief Justice for appointment of a DT and the Applicant to...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: Court directed Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate two heads (misleading the court; acting against instructions and concealment). Application dismissed as to conflict of interest head.

Orders

  • Order directing Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for appointment of a Disciplinary Tribunal to investigate: (a) allegation that Mr Koh knowingly misled the Court by at least three untrue statements at the 27 July 2015 hearing; (b) allegation that Mr Koh acted against the Applicant's instructions by...
  • Order that the Applicant shall have conduct of proceedings before the Disciplinary Tribunal and any subsequent proceedings under s 98, and that those proceedings shall be brought in the Applicant's name (s 96(5)).