Judgment Header
Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5
Court DecisionSGHC
[2013] SGHC 5
[2013] SGHC 5
General Division of the High Court of Singapore15 Jan 2013Originating Summons No 16 of 2012
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
This decision has been doubted in a later judgment and cited in 12 other later decisions. Confirm it is still good law before relying on it.
- Doubted by [2021] SGCA 81
Detected automatically from later judgments; not a substitute for a citator check.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
13Later cases and laws citing this decision
“iplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the burden of proof lay on Loh as the complainant to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt (see Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [28]).”
“see also Law Society of Singapore v Singham Dennis Mahendran [2001] 1 SLR(R) 1, Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239, Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 and The Law Society of Singapore v Kangatharan Kandavellu [2017] SGDT 9. In the event that the charge on th”
“ence of aggravating factors may justify the imposition of more severe sanctions, such as a suspension from practice or being struck off the roll (see Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [44]–[45]).”
“nctions, such as a suspension from practice or being struck off the roll (see Law Society of Singapore v Ezekiel Peter Latimer [2020] SGHC 38 at [3]; Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [44]–[45]).”
“ements in her 4 June 2015 Email and 22 June 2015 Email, failed to meet the requisite standards of care and skill expected of a legal practitioner. In Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5, for example, the Court of 3 Judges, in finding Chiong guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and so”
Show 8 moreShow fewer
“basis of the logic that the greater encompasses the lesser. Such was the case, for instance, in Ezekiel Peter Latimer, Ng Chee Sing, Wong Sin Yee and Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 (“Selena Chiong”). Indeed, as the Court of Three Judges observed in Lim Kiap Khee at [21]:”
“It is often said that DTs are quasi-criminal in nature. In Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5, the C3J held at [28]:”
“r do both. Aggravating circumstances, such as a previous disciplinary record of misconduct, may conduce towards a suspension over a monetary penalty: Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [45].”
“he offence and the particulars of the time and place of the alleged offence, to enable the subject of the charge to prepare their defence adequately: Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 (“Selena Chiong”) at [28] and Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council [2013] 1 SLR 83 at [29]–[30]. Asse”
“and more serious sanctions such as suspension from practice or, in extreme cases, striking the advocate and solicitor off the roll may be justified: Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [45]. A fine would also not be appropriate where the legal practitioner’s misconduct was not mere inadve”
“r, at the hearing before us, he submitted instead that a sanction of three months’ suspension or less was appropriate. He referred us to the cases of Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 (“Selena Chiong”) and Law Society of Singapore v Udeh Kumar s/o Sethuraju [2013] 3 SLR 875 (“Udeh”). He so”
“honourable to the respondent-solicitor as a man, and dishonourable in his profession: Joseph Chen at [150]. An intention to deceive is not necessary: Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [25]. Simple negligence or want of skill may not constitute grossly improper conduct, but the gravity o”
“In the present case, we are concerned with disciplinary proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature (see Law Society of Singapore v Chiong Chin May Selena [2013] SGHC 5 at [28]). Nevertheless, even if we were to apply a less stringent test for permitting an exception to issue estoppel, it is clear that neither cond”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Originating Summons No 16 of 2012
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2013-01-15
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.