Wee Soon Kim Anthony v The Law Society of Singapore (Davinder Singh and another, proposed interveners, Third Party) (No 5)

[1] This was a matter in which the Applicant Mr Wee Soon Kim Anthony had made a complaint to the Law Society of Singapore against two solicitors (‘the Solicitors’). The complaint related to the preparation of affidavits for their clients which the Applicant alleged contained false statements.

[2] An Inquiry Committee was constituted to investigate one of the complaints. Thereafter the Inquiry Committee recommended that the complaint be dismissed and the Council of the Law Society determined that a formal investigation by a Disciplinary Committee was not necessary.

[3] Mr Wee then applied by way of Originating Summons No 37 of 2000 (‘the OS’) for an order under s 96(1) of the Legal Profession Act directing the Law Society to apply to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a Disciplinary Committee.

[7] Mr Wee has appealed to the Court of Appeal against my decision.

[8] Item 29 was described in vague terms. It merely stated:

[9] There was no mention in item 29 of the nature of the work done, for example, was it for research into the law or photocopying of authorities or bundles of documents. The details of such work were also not given. There was also no mention of the dates when the work was done or the amount of time spent.

[11] At the hearing before the Assistant Registrar, Mr Wee did not produce any invoice from K.S. Chia to justify his claim for $25,000. Instead he produced a letter dated 28 October 2002 from them to his current solicitors which stated:

[12] In my view, this letter, while giving some information, was still vague. It did not elaborate on the dates of the meetings, the issues on which legal advice was sought, the cases which were considered during the research, the documents which were perused and examined, the correspondence received and sent and the court documents which were prepared and filed. The amount of time spent was also not given.

[14] Mr Goh also submitted that the $10,000 allowed by the Assistant Registrar was less than half the $25,000 claimed. The $10,000 was also within the range of amounts i.e $10,000 to $18,000 submitted by Mr Hri Kumar, appearing for the Solicitors, for work of the same nature.

[15] However, Mr Goh had taken Mr Kumar’s submission out of context. The range given by Mr Kumar was on the basis that a firm of solicitors had done all the getting-up for the Application and the appeals and appeared to present arguments. In the case before me, it was Mr Wee who had done the getting-up work and appeared for himself. He is a senior member of the bar although apparently not in practice at the material times. There was no mention by him when he appeared at each hearing for the Application and the appeals that he had obtained the services of a firm of solicitors to assist him. Furthermore, he had already claimed in his Bill for the work he had done.

[16] As for Mr Goh’s submission that the $10,000 allowed was already less than half the $25,000 claimed, I was of the view that this was not a valid argument. It is for the party claiming an amount to justify it with adequate information and, where necessary, documentary evidence. A party should not claim a very high figure in the hope that he will be allowed a certain percentage of it. The sooner such an approach is abandoned, the better.

[17] Bearing in mind the vague information on the work allegedly done by K.S. Chia, I decided to allow $1,000 only for item 29. Besides, Mr Wee will not be out-of-pocket since K.S. Chia will only charge him whatever is allowed.