Case Update

Leong Mei Chuan v Chan Teck Hock David [2001] 2 SLR 17

Court of Appeal - Civil Appeal No 71 of 2000
LP Thean and Chao Hick Tin JJA
24 November 2000, 8 February 2001

Appeal - Notice of appeal - Amendment - Whether application to amend notice of appeal should be allowed

Tan Hin Tat, Janaine Ong and V Kanyakumari (Sim Hill Tan & Wong) for the appellant.
Anamah Tan and Veronica Ann Joseph (Ann Tan & Associates) for the respondent.

The appellant wife appealed to a High Court judge-in-chambers against certain orders made by the district judge on matters ancillary to divorce proceedings between her respondent husband and herself. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the appellant applied for leave to amend the notice of appeal to include a prayer for an order concerning certain matrimonial property. This prayer was not included in the original notice of appeal. The judge, approximating the application to an application to extend time for the filing of the notice of appeal, applied stringent standards and rejected the application. The appellant appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:
The stringent standards required in an application for extension of time to file an appeal are not absolute and applicable to all cases. The resolution of problems such as the present application for leave to amend a notice of appeal cannot be governed by a single universally applicable rule of thumb. A rigid, mechanistic approach is inappropriate.

Although the amendment sought was not inconsequential but of a substantive character, the relevant considerations were whether the opposing party had been given reasonable notice of the amendment and afforded a sufficient opportunity to address the substance of the amendment, and whether the amendment sought was consistent with the pleadings or the points raised below. Short of grave prejudice or hardship to the opposing party that could not be addressed by an order as to costs, the court should lean in favour of allowing the amendment.

Law Society of Singapore v Lim Yee Kai [2001] 1 SLR 721

High Court - Originating Summons No 1114 of 2000
Yong Pung How CJ, LP Thean and Chao Hick Tin JJA
24 November 2000, 4 January 2001

Show cause action - Whether respondent guilty of grossly improper conduct in discharge of professional duty - Failing to maintain proper accounting records and books - Criminal breach of trust - Whether respondent failed to comply with Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules - Appropriate penalty

M Sivakumar and Prakash P Mulani (Azman Soh Murugaiyan) for the applicant.
Respondent absent.
The respondent was at all material times practising under the name and style of YK Lim and Company ('the firm'). One Mr Loh joined the firm with effect from 17 September 1996. In November 1997, Mr Loh discovered that a total sum of $416,974.12 was missing from the firm's client's account. Mr Loh confronted the respondent who admitted taking the moneys for various purposes of his own. Subsequently, Mr Loh made a report to the Commercial Affairs Department ('CAD') and also informed The Law Society of Singapore ('the Law Society') of the matter.
The Law Society's investigations revealed that for the year 1997, the accounting records and books required under paragraphs (1)-(4) of r 11 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules were not kept and maintained by the respondent and he had therefore failed to comply with these Rules. Upon the Law Society's application, the court suspended the respondent's practising certificate on 15 January 1998 and ordered that the Law Society refer his conduct to a Disciplinary Committee for investigation.
The CAD's investigations also revealed that the respondent had misappropriated a total of $413,129.72 from the firm's client's account. He used the misappropriated funds for various purposes of his own. The respondent was charged with criminal breach of trust before the district court, but he absconded before the matter was heard.
A Disciplinary Committee was appointed to hear and investigate the complaint against the respondent. Two charges against the respondent were brought before the Disciplinary Committee, namely, that the respondent was guilty of grossly improper conduct firstly, for failing to maintain the relevant accounts and books for 1997 and secondly, for criminal breach of trust. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee found that there was overwhelming evidence in support of both charges. The Law Society then obtained an order requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be dealt with under s 83 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Ed) ('the Act').

Held, striking the respondent off the rolls:
In respect of the first charge, there was clear evidence that the respondent had contravened paragraphs (1)-(4) of r 11 of the Legal Profession (Solicitors' Accounts) Rules. Large sums of moneys had been entrusted to the respondent to hold on behalf of his clients and he failed or neglected to keep proper accounts of such moneys. These were serious breaches of the Rules which amounted to grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. In relation to the second charge, the respondent's conduct was deplorable. He misappropriated large sums of his clients' moneys for his own purposes and absconded. This was a clear case of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.
Where a solicitor has acted dishonestly, the court will order that he be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. Here, the respondent failed to discharge his professional duty with integrity and trustworthiness. He neglected to keep proper accounts and wilfully misappropriated clients' moneys for his own use. His conduct was dishonest and dishonourable and the only order that could be made was to strike him off the roll.