Do you have trust in the Singapore legal system?

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Two lawyers called to the Bar after owning up to wrongdoings had learnt from mistakes: CJ Menon​

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon allowed their applications to be called to the Bar after all stakeholders involved said they had no objections to their admission. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

MAR 9, 2023

SINGAPORE - Two law graduates from Singapore Management University (SMU), whose admissions to the Bar were deferred after they voluntarily owned up to their past wrongdoings, were called as lawyers on Thursday.
Ms Tay Jie Qi disclosed that she had plagiarised several paragraphs for a paper during her second year at SMU, even though this was not reflected in her academic transcript.
Ms Shauna Low came clean about two separate brushes with law enforcement: She was caught shoplifting, and was also arrested and tested for drugs after Xanax pills were found in her sister’s bag.
Ms Tay’s application to be called to the Bar was originally set to be heard in August 2022, and Ms Low’s in November 2022.
They agreed to adjourn their applications for three months after the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) objected to their admissions.
On Thursday, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon allowed their applications to be called to the Bar after all stakeholders involved said they had no objections to their admission.
He said: “Everyone makes mistakes. The real question is whether one demonstrates the capacity to learn from one’s mistake.”

He said the two demonstrated remorse and capacity for change, and were transparent in disclosing matters that were not in the public domain.
CJ Menon added that their willingness to face up to their mistakes was “heartening” and concluded that no further deferment was needed.
The two applications are unrelated to the series of cases where 11 aspiring lawyers cheated in Part B of the Bar examinations in 2020.

Ms Tay plagiarised several paragraphs from a paper by another student in the previous year when she submitted her research paper for a module on constitutional and administrative law.
When confronted, she apologised and was given an official letter of reprimand. She also had five marks deducted from the paper.

The incident was recorded internally and not reflected on her academic transcript.
She disclosed the plagiarism incident on her own initiative in her Bar admission application.
The AGC and the Law Society, two of the stakeholders involved in the admission of lawyers, sought additional information from her, and she filed an affidavit detailing the incident.
CJ Menon said her case was dissimilar from those who cheated in the 2020 Bar exam – the plagiarism was isolated and took place a significant amount of time before she applied for admission.
He said Ms Tay was resolute about coming clean and facing up to the consequences, and had sufficiently shown that she has learnt from her mistake.
As for Ms Low, she disclosed that she was caught in 2016 when she tried to steal an eyeshadow palette from a store. The police eventually gave her a stern warning and her police record was sealed.
Some time between 2017 and 2018, she went for a night out at a club, where a staff member found illicit substances in the bag of one of those in her group.
Ms Low tested negative for drugs. She later found out that Xanax pills, which had been prescribed to another person, were found in her sister’s bag.

CJ Menon said the second incident was not pertinent as it did not show a character defect but was an unfortunate incident.
The shoplifting incident reflects dishonesty, but he said Ms Low has shown that she has reflected on, and remedied, what took place six years ago, and has maintained a clean record since.
He added that she was willing to openly confront her mistake, and showed candour and accountability.

 

[Patriotmissile]

They should not be qualified as lawyers. There are too many lousy and bad eggs in the circle already. Can just be legal consultant.

 

[mojito]

No trust with out thrust. Now Ben Dover.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Ex-Changi Airport Group chairman’s son Karl Liew admits lying to judge in Parti Liyani case​

Karl Liew pleaded guilty to one charge of giving false information to a public servant. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Mar 30, 2023

SINGAPORE - Karl Liew admitted to lying to a district judge in the case involving his family’s former maid, Ms Parti Liyani, who had been accused of stealing from his family.
The 45-year-old, who is the son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, pleaded guilty on Thursday to one charge of giving false information to a public servant.
The prosecution asked for a fine of $5,000 and the case has been adjourned to April 14.
After a trial, Ms Parti, an Indonesian, then 45, was initially convicted in 2019 of stealing $34,000 worth of items from the Liews.
She was acquitted after the High Court overturned her conviction on appeal in 2020.
Ms Parti, who began working for the Liew family in 2007, was asked in March 2016 to do chores at Karl Liew‘s home and clean his office at another location.
She was unhappy at being made to do extra work for him.

The Liew family terminated her employment in October 2016, and she was given two hours to pack her belongings into three boxes.
Ms Parti threatened to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower before returning to Indonesia.
She had asked Karl Liew to pay for the boxes to be shipped to her. The next day, the Liew family opened the boxes.

A police report was made claiming that some of the items she had packed in the boxes belonged to the Liew family.
Ms Parti was arrested when she returned to Singapore in December 2016, and was charged with four counts of theft in August 2017.
She claimed trial to the charges, was convicted and sentenced to two years and two months’ jail in 2019.

Ms Parti was acquitted after an appeal in 2020, in which the High Court ruled the original conviction was unsafe, highlighting the police’s handling of the evidence.
It had been reported in February 2022 that the two police officers who were involved in Ms Parti’s case had neglected their duties and had fallen short of expectations.
Both officers were fined, and the penalties were calculated through the number of months of salary increments foregone, said Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam on Feb 14, 2022.
He was giving Parliament an update into the internal investigations of the case.
Mr Shanmugam had said both the investigation officer (IO) and his supervisor had neglected their duties, resulting in three lapses.
The first was that the IO did not visit the crime scene to promptly carry out investigations and gather evidence, contributing to a break in the chain of custody for some exhibits.
The second was the IO did not properly verify some of the claims made by parties during the investigation.
The third lapse was the supervisor not providing sufficient guidance.
The minister said the officers had done their jobs under difficult circumstances, facing workload challenges due to a manpower shortage in the police force.
He said both officers faced penalties in the medium range.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Veteran coach acquitted of molesting teen athlete after appeal to High Court​

Veteran track and field coach Loh Siang Piow was sentenced to 21 months’ jail in July 2020, after a trial that began in 2018. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Mar 30, 2023

SINGAPORE - The High Court on Thursday acquitted veteran track and field coach Loh Siang Piow of molesting a teenage athlete in 2013, following his appeal against his conviction and sentence.
Mr Loh, 78, better known in the fraternity as Loh Chan Pew, was sentenced to 21 months’ jail in July 2020, after a trial that began in 2018.
He was convicted by a district judge of two counts of molesting a female athlete when she was 18 by rubbing her genitals on two occasions while massaging the back of her thighs.
The incidents allegedly took place at the old Tampines Stadium on Feb 24 and March 15 in 2013.
She lodged a police report against Mr Loh on July 30, 2016.
On Thursday, more than a dozen family members and former trainees in the public gallery sighed with relief after Justice Hoo Sheau Peng cleared him of both charges.
In acquitting Mr Loh, Justice Hoo said there were “inherent weaknesses” in the testimony of his accuser, identified as Ms C, and that it was “plainly wrong” for the trial judge to rely on her evidence to convict Mr Loh.

Justice Hoo said that not only did the accuser’s account lack specific details on the training session on Feb 24, 2013, but it also contains a crucial concession that she did not know if Mr Loh’s contact with her genital area was an “accidental part of the massage”.
“In fact, Ms C was not entirely clear where she was touched,” said the judge.
The accuser also claimed to have expressed discomfort to her parents over being touched, which was why her father accompanied her for a third session. But this account was not supported by either parent.
Justice Hoo also said Mr Loh had raised reasonable doubt that he was not at the Tampines Stadium on March 15, 2013.
She said: “The District Judge tended to resolve all doubts, discrepancies and contradictions in favour of the prosecution. In the final analysis, the serious doubts as to the veracity of Ms C’s allegations cannot be dismissed.”
The judge also noted that at the time of the alleged offences, it was a prevalent practice in the athletic community for coaches to give trainees massages after intensive training.

“If the practice remains today, the community, including the coaches, should rethink and review the appropriateness of such a practice,” she said.
Should this continue to be a necessary practice, there should be proper safeguards adopted to minimise the potential for any abuse of the trainees by the coaches, or to prevent genuine misunderstandings between coaches and trainees, she said.
Approached for comment after the verdict, Mr Loh said in Mandarin that he was “feeling emotional”.
Charges relating to a second female athlete, who was 16 at the time of the alleged offences, have been stood down.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Being a good lawyer requires you to be a good person​

The noticeable rise in breaches of ethics and professional standards by lawyers has shone the spotlight on what standards are expected of lawyers.​

S Chandra Mohan

New lawyers being called to the Bar at the Supreme Court auditorium in 2022. PHOTO: LIANHE ZAOBAO

APR 1, 2023


Recent reports of misconduct by fresh law graduates as well as lawyers of many years’ standing have been troubling. This is because the public perception of a lawyer is that of a professional of good standing, skilful and, above all, trustworthy.
Higher standards of behaviour are, therefore, expected of a lawyer as an officer of the court, and lapses in ethical conduct lead to punishment both by the Law Society and the court.
As Sir Thomas Bingam, former chief justice of England, explained in a 1994 case, the fundamental purpose of punishing errant lawyers is to maintain the reputation of the legal profession “as one in which every member may be trusted to the ends of the earth”.
At the opening of the legal year in January, Singapore’s Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon expressed concerns at the noticeable rise in breaches of ethics and professional standards by lawyers. He warned that a “looming decline in ethical and professional standards is likely to be exacerbated” if the profession did not apply itself to fostering the values that traditionally characterise the legal profession.
This is not the first time such fears have been raised. And it may well not be the last, unless there are significant changes in how lawyers see themselves as members of an honourable profession, often regarded as the oldest reputable one in the world.
Previously, new entrants to the Bar were reminded to be mindful of the core values of the legal profession. CJ Menon told young lawyers in 2022 that “as lawyers, we are absolutely bound to conduct ourselves honourably and honestly”. In 2007, then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong also reminded young lawyers that the most important quality of every lawyer is a firm commitment to ethics, which includes an overriding duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system. He also emphasised that they should strive to be “honest, competent and diligent”.
Before being allowed to practise as an advocate and solicitor, all lawyers must take an oath in which they make a commitment to conduct themselves in the spirit of truth and honesty. The High Court has held this to be “a commitment which is necessarily one that is ethical in nature”. A lawyer may face disciplinary action under the Legal Profession Act if his or her conduct has been dishonourable to him or her as a person and dishonourable in his or her profession.

A calling​

Why then has there been a rise in breaches of professional standards? Perhaps who we are, as lawyers and as citizens, is no longer clearly defined by the sum of our ethical values.
Increasingly, the legal profession may also now be less able or willing to cope with the ethical challenges arising from the need to balance running a profitable business with the interests and demands of a profession. If legal advisers, who are the “conscience of the corporations” they advise, are themselves unethical, they cannot be relied upon to ensure that the corporations they advise are acting ethically.
How then do we arrest this decline in the ethics of the profession? Indeed, a team tasked by the Chief Justice to develop “a strategy aimed at re-establishing the moral centre and values” for the legal profession has a difficult task. Where do they begin?


A proposal to increase the conduct rules for lawyers may be unhelpful as the legal profession is already governed by a web of rules including law, conduct rules and practice directions from the Law Society and the courts, and non-legal ethical norms.
Perhaps greater vigilance and stricter enforcement of breaches by the Law Society and its stakeholders may assist to deter misconduct. Something needs to be done urgently, both by individuals and collectively by the profession, to arrest the decline in values.
Next, we need to double down on our efforts to teach practical legal ethics at the universities, the Bar Course and beyond. The American Bar Association’s response to the Watergate scandal, which involved a number of lawyers, was to insist that legal ethics be taught at all law schools.
The learning of ethics is important when we consider that so much of a lawyer’s work and public perception of the profession depends on trust, integrity and honesty. It has often been argued that the development of legal institutions can be understood only in the light of knowledge about the ethics of the legal profession.

In addition, ethical values need to be emphasised continuously to the profession in talks and seminars by universities, the Law Society and the Academy of Law. Ethics must be understood as a lifelong process of learning and nurturing the right virtues in ourselves and those in our charge.
Lawyers renewing their practising certificates each year should be required to reaffirm their declaration made at the time of being admitted to practise law, as a reminder as to what is continuously expected of them as members of an honourable profession.
It is also time for the legal profession to re-examine its goals and functions in the society it serves. Many in the profession may be at fault with their over-emphasis on their business objectives of profits, high earnings, large bonuses, billable hours and early partnerships. Pupil masters and mentors need to guide their wards, to use the words of CJ Menon, that the practice of law is not just a way of earning a living but “a calling to participate in the administration of justice”.
As we emphasise to our students at the university, a good lawyer can also be a good person.

• S. Chandra Mohan is a former senior district judge and legal officer. He has taught a course on Ethics and Social Responsibility at the Singapore Management University for a number of years.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

‘Failed to practise responsible journalism’: TOC’s Terry Xu fined $18k for contempt of court​

Terry Xu had reposted an open letter by an Australian citizen who questioned the equity of Singapore’s justice system. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Apr 6, 2023

SINGAPORE - Chief editor of sociopolitical website The Online Citizen (TOC) Terry Xu has been fined $18,000 for contempt of court for reposting an open letter by an Australian citizen who questioned the equity of Singapore’s justice system.
The High Court also ordered Xu to delete the article from TOC’s website, but ruled that the accompanying comments left by readers on the Web page do not have to be removed.
The article had been taken down by Thursday afternoon when The Straits Times checked the site.
On Jan 27, 2021, Xu reproduced a letter that Ms Julie O’Connor had posted on her personal blog earlier that day, with a few stylistic edits.
Xu also shared the article on TOC’s Facebook page. The post was removed earlier in 2023.
In a judgment issued on Thursday, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said Xu “failed to practise responsible journalism, and instead proceeded to publish scurrilous allegations against the courts” to influence the opinions of TOC’s readers.
The judge said the article and the Facebook post were “rife with grave allegations levelled against the judiciary”.

Justice Hoo said the article, when read as a whole, suggests to a reasonable reader that the Singapore courts favour those who have money, power or connections with judges; that judges are not selected for their courage to seek or determine the truth; and that the courts decide cases based on political reasons rather than on their merits.
This directly impugns the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and “would necessarily as well as undoubtedly undermine public confidence in the judiciary”, she said.
Ms O’Connor’s open letter was addressed to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and made references to his speech at a ceremony to mark the opening of the 2021 legal year.

Ms O’Connor, a former Singapore permanent resident, referred to several cases from the previous year, such as that of Ms Parti Liyani, a former domestic worker who was acquitted of theft.
She also cited the cases involving Mr Li Shengwu, who was fined for contempt of court, and Mrs Lee Suet Fern, who was found guilty of professional misconduct in her handling of founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s will.
Ms O’Connor also wrote that a Queen’s Counsel had commented that the court decision in Mrs Lee’s case was “legally unsound”.

Between Jan 18, 2021, and March 24, 2021, the TOC article attracted 4,310 page views. The Facebook post, as at June 17, 2021, had received 146 reactions, 31 comments and 44 shares.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) started contempt proceedings against Xu after he refused its demand on June 22, 2021, to remove the article and the Facebook post.
Justice Hoo said Xu showed a complete lack of remorse by keeping the article and the Facebook post up, even after the AGC informed him that the publications contained contemptuous allegations.
She said the reference to “Queen’s Counsel” in the article conjured a false sheen of legitimacy to the allegations.
The Attorney-General had sought a $20,000 fine with 10 days’ jail in lieu of payment. Xu, who was represented by Mr Lim Tean, argued that the fine should be no more than $3,000 with four days’ jail in lieu of payment.
Justice Hoo said a fine of $18,000, with 10 days’ jail in lieu of payment, was appropriate and in line with the precedents.
She cited the cases of blogger and activist Alex Au, who was fined $8,000; activist Jolovan Wham, who was fined $5,000; and Mr Li, who was fined $15,000.
She said Xu’s conduct was more egregious and therefore warranted a higher sentence than these cases.

Under the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, those found liable for contempt can be punished with a fine of up to $100,000, a prison term of up to three years, or both.
Xu had earlier failed in his attempt to stop the Attorney-General from continuing with the contempt proceedings against him.
He had argued that prosecuting only him and not even investigating Ms O’Connor was a violation of his constitutional right to equal treatment under the law.
But the Court of Appeal dismissed his bid, saying that Xu‘s treatment cannot be meaningfully compared with that of Ms O’Connor’s as there were differentiating factors between them.
The factors include the fact that Ms O’Connor lives overseas, making it difficult for the Singapore authorities to investigate and prosecute her, and that Xu‘s publication likely gave the allegations much wider circulation than they would otherwise have enjoyed, given TOC’s reach as a news platform.
The Attorney-General was entitled to take these factors into account in deciding to prosecute Xu but not Ms O’Connor, said the apex court.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Kwa Kim Li fined $13,000 after being found guilty of misleading Lee Hsien Yang and sharing confidential information with PM Lee without LHY’s consent​

May 10, 2023
By Jewel Stolarchuk

Lawyer Kwa Kim Li was found guilty of making the false and misleading representation that Mr Lee Kuan Yew had never instructed her to change his will

A disciplinary tribunal has fined senior lawyer Kwa Kim Li a total of $13,000 and ordered her to pay Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) close to about $21,000 in costs and disbursements after finding her guilty of misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor.
The ruling was released on Friday (5 May) and represents the latest development in the ongoing dispute between founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s (LKY) children. The feud erupted following disagreements about the late elder statesman’s will and his desire to have their family home at 38 Oxley Road demolished after his death.
Ms Kwa Kim Li, who is Mr Lee’s wife Kwa Geok Choo’s niece, has played a central role in the saga as Mr Lee’s solicitor.
On Friday, she was ordered to pay $8,000 after being found guilty of making the false and misleading representation that LKY never instructed her to change his will dated 2 Nov 2012.
She was also found guilty of misleading LHY and Dr Lee Wei Ling (LWL) by omitting to disclose her communications with LKY between November 2013 and 13 Dec 2013 in response to their enquiries.
On top of this, Kwa was found to have breached confidentiality by sharing documents with LKY’s eldest son and current Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (LHL), without the consent of LHY and LWL, the executors and trustees of their father’s will. She was charged with a $5,000 penalty for this.
The acts amount to misconduct unbefitting an advocate and solicitor as an officer of the Supreme Court under section 83(2)(h) of the Legal Profession Act.
As the disciplinary tribunal found the harm committed by Kwa’s misconduct to be “low” and her culpability being “low to medium,” it ordered Kwa to pay penalties that it found to be “sufficient and appropriate to the misconduct committed.”
The tribunal also ordered Kwa to pay LHY costs in the sum of $12,000 and disbursements in the sum of $9,182.29.


The findings of the tribunal
The tribunal assessed two charges the Law Society and LHY brought, respectively.
The Law Society charged Kwa with knowingly disclosing confidential documents and information to LHL without the consent of the executors of the estate. The confidential information Kwa shared with the PM includes five previous wills, email trails between LKY and herself, and explanations for why LKY changed his previous wills.
Kwa admitted to the facts set out in this charge and admitted that these facts amounted to misconduct unbefitting of an advocate and solicitor. She, however, said that this is a breach of confidentiality of the lowest level as LKY would have wanted her to share the information with his children.

She added that she released the confidential information to LHL out of deep loyalty to her uncle, even though he did not specifically instruct her to do so.
The tribunal accepted that there is no evidence suggesting that Kwa was acting with any improper motives. It noted that she had a close personal relationship with her client and his children, who are her first cousins, with whom she grew up.
It, however, noted that it would have been clear to Kwa that she was dealing with sensitive family issues and that she should have acted strictly within her professional boundaries and exercised care and caution. The tribunal said that her misconduct was “her failure to scrupulously safeguard” LKY’s confidentiality.
Meanwhile, LHY, as the complainant, charged Kwa with misleading him and his sister by omitting and/or otherwise failing to disclose her communications with their father between November 2013 and 13 December 2013 in response to their enquiries.
She was also accused of making the false and misleading representation that LKY had never instructed her to change his will dated 2 November 2012.
The two emails that are the subject matter of LHY’s charge were sent by Kwa on 4 June 2015 and 22 June 2015.
The tribunal found that LHY and LWL’s email to Kwa on 3 June did not require reference to the Nov/Dec 2013 communications between Kwa and their father when she replied on 4 June. Based on the evidence it heard, the tribunal said it does not find the charge regarding the 4 June 2015 email to be made out on the facts.
The tribunal, however, found that Kwa did mislead LHY in her email on 22 June.
This time, the email LHY sent to Kwa clearly sought information on what she discussed with his father in Nov/Dec 2013.
LHY and LWL wanted to know the background that led to the signing of Will No. 7. Between Nov/Dec 2013, LKY had several discussions with Kwa about the changes he wanted to make to his will.
Specifically, LKY wanted to share the increase in value of 38 Oxley Road upon any degazetting to be shared equally between his three children instead of having it be retained by LHL, who was to be bequeathed the Oxley property.
He also wished to give all three children equal shares, and Kwa stated that she would prepare a codicil to affect his wish for his signature that week or when he was ready. She added that she had “some thoughts” on the Oxley Road property and would call LKY later that day.
On 13 Dec 2013, LKY sent another email to Kwa asking for a further amendment to his will regarding the bequest for two carpets to LHY.
The tribunal agreed that it was this information that LHY sought from Kwa. But when asked for the background which led to the signing of Will No. 7, Kwa did not refer to her discussions with LKY at all and replied:
“After your father signed Will no. 6 dated 2nd November 2012, he did not instruct me to change his Will. I first learnt about Will no. 7 via email from Fern and Lin Hoe.”
Wong Lin Hoe served as Private Secretary to Lee Kuan Yew.
Kwa told the tribunal that her statement was true and complete as she was not involved at all in the preparation or execution of Will No. 7, but the tribunal did not accept her submissions. It said:
“The issues are quite simple. The first question is whether the November / December 2013 communications should have been disclosed in response to a query on the background to the signing of Will No. 7.
“The second question is whether the omission to disclose made the response misleading. The third question is whether it was true that the Respondent did not receive any instructions to change the Testator’s Will.”
Noting that Kwa failed to disclose the Nov/Dec 2013 communications when asked and gave the “unequivocal impression” that she had no knowledge as to how Will No. 7 came about, the tribunal said:
“We find that the nub of the queries by LHL and LWL was to find out how Will No. 7 came about, and not the formalities of its execution. It is clear that the Respondent knew that the Testator wanted to change the 6th Will and that the changes related to the shares amongst the children in the Oxley Road property.”
Asserting that Kwa did receive instructions relating to the changes that were shortly made, the tribunal found that Kwa’s omission to disclose the Nov/Dec 2013 emails in her email of 22 June 2015 is misleading. It added:
“We further find that her statement in that same email that she did not receive any instructions from the Testator to change his Will is false.”
The tribunal, however, found no direct evidence that Ms Kwa knowingly or deliberately misled the recipients of the 22 June 2015 email. There was also no evidence or even suggestion that she chose to avoid disclosure for personal or any partisan purposes.
Despite this, the tribunal noted that Ms Kwa should have been complete and accurate in her response. It said: “We find that had the Respondent exercised due care and diligence, she ought to have disclosed the November / December 2013 communications in the 22 June 2015 email and ought not have stated that she had received no instructions to change the Testator’s Will.”

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Court acquits lawyer and MP Christopher de Souza of professional misconduct charge​

The decision by the Court of Three Judges came after the Law Society argued for Mr Christopher de Souza to be suspended for 4 years. PHOTO: GOV.SG

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

July 31, 2023

SINGAPORE - People’s Action Party MP Christopher de Souza was cleared of a charge of professional misconduct as a lawyer on Monday.
The decision by the Court of Three Judges came after the Law Society argued for him to be suspended for four years.
Mr de Souza, who is the Deputy Speaker of Parliament and an MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, was facing the court in a hearing to decide the outcome of disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the Law Society.
His lawyer, on the other hand, urged the court to acquit him of the charge, arguing that the Law Society had persistently advanced a doggedly misconceived case against Mr de Souza, a partner at Lee & Lee.
The court, comprising Justices Belinda Ang, Woo Bih Li and Kannan Ramesh, said that the Law Society did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had intended to help his client suppress evidence.
Mr de Souza was found guilty by a two-member disciplinary tribunal in 2022 for helping his client suppress evidence by preparing and filing an affidavit that did not reveal his client had breached an undertaking not to use certain documents.
The case related to his conduct while he was acting for Amber Compounding Pharmacy and Amber Laboratories.

Amber, which was initially represented by another law firm, was granted a court order to carry out a search for documents, on condition it give an undertaking not to use the seized documents without further order.
However, Amber used some documents to lodge reports with various authorities.
Lee & Lee later took over the civil suit, and Mr de Souza advised Amber to apply for the court’s permission to use the documents.

On Monday, Mr Madan Assomull, representing the Law Society, argued that Mr de Souza knew about the breach but failed to disclose this in the affidavit of a company representative that was filed to support the application.
Mr Assomull argued there was a deliberate intention to make the affidavit vague. He also argued that Mr de Souza made the considered decision not to exhibit the reports in the affidavit.
Mr de Souza’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng, argued the affidavit did reveal that Amber had used the documents.
The affidavit by Mr Samuel Sudesh Thaddeus, a representative from Amber, said he had reviewed the seized documents, came to the conclusion that criminal offences were committed and decided to lodge the reports, argued Mr Tan.
Justice Woo commented that the paragraph in question was not worded as clearly as Mr de Souza seemed to think.
The judge said: “I had to read paragraph 24 many times because it’s not as clear as he made it out to be.”

Mr Tan replied the affidavit could have been better drafted but argued that the lack of clarity did not show an intention to assist Amber to suppress evidence.
He said Mr Sudesh’s resistance to disclosure led to a series of e-mail exchanges between the Lee & Lee team and Amber, resulting in seven iterations of the affidavit.
Mr Tan said Mr de Souza had acted with utmost integrity, and he showed an internal e-mail in which Mr de Souza flagged Mr Sudesh’s amendments for giving an incorrect impression.
But Mr Assomull questioned if the court wanted to send the message to lawyers that sometimes they can get away on the basis of bad drafting.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

District judge fell short of standards, but conduct did not amount to apparent bias: Chief Justice​

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Sep 20, 2023

SINGAPORE - A district judge who reproduced large chunks of the prosecution’s submissions in his written grounds of decision fell short of the standards of professionalism expected of the judiciary, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said on Wednesday.
But the Chief Justice ruled that while the district judge’s conduct was “wholly unsatisfactory as a matter of judicial practice”, it did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of bias, and thus, was not a basis for setting aside the judicial officer’s decision.
He said that when a court reproduces one side’s arguments and fails to engage with the submissions of the losing side, it leaves the losing party feeling that its case has not been fairly considered.
“I do not regard this as reflective of the general attitude of our judicial officers, who uniformly and consistently uphold the highest standards in their daily work of discharging the grave responsibility that is entrusted to them. Their efforts should not be tarnished by this incident,” he said.
Chief Justice Menon made the remarks as he delivered his decision to allow an appeal by a man who was sentenced to 16 weeks’ jail in April by District Judge Soh Tze Bian for conspiring with a doctor to falsify Covid-19 vaccination records.
The Chief Justice reduced the jail term to 12 weeks on Wednesday after concluding that the risk of the potential harm to the Health Promotion Board (HPB) was low.
The offender, Australian David Christopher Newton, 44, had served the original term and left Singapore.

Mr Newton had paid $6,000 to general practitioner Jipson Quah and the doctor’s then clinic assistant Thomas Chua Cheng Soon to falsify vaccination records for himself and his wife.
In December 2021 and January 2022, Quah injected Mr Newton and his wife, Ms Wonglangka Apinya, 32, with saline solution before submitting the false records of vaccination to the National Immunisation Registry.
Mr Newton did not want to be vaccinated against Covid-19; he was offered a job in Australia but faced difficulty entering the country because he was not vaccinated.

He had contacted Chua after joining the Telegram chat group of anti-vaccine group Healing the Divide. His wife did not know about the deception.
After the offences were uncovered, Mr Newton was handed two charges of cheating for conspiring with Quah and Chua to cheat the HPB.
Quah and Chua have been separately charged; their cases are pending in court.
Mr Newton’s case was fixed for a hearing for him to plead guilty. Meanwhile, the prosecution and the defence filed written submissions setting out their positions on sentence.
At the hearing on April 27, 2023, Mr Newton pleaded guilty to one charge and agreed for the second to be taken into consideration. Judge Soh then told parties that he had read their submissions, and said he had prepared his grounds of decision and will highlight the reasons for the sentence he was handing down.
Despite having served the 16-week jail term, Mr Newton pursued an appeal through his lawyer, Mr Paul Loy.
During the appeal hearing in August, Mr Loy alleged apparent bias as one of his arguments, although he eventually dropped this point.
The lawyer pointed to the fact that the judge had reproduced substantial portions of the prosecution’s submission to prepare his grounds of decision before hearing oral arguments.
On Wednesday, in his written judgment, Chief Justice Menon said a judge is often likely to arrive at a provisional view after having read, digested and considered written submissions, and may well come to a hearing prepared with a draft or outline of the decision.
In the present case, the Chief Justice found that the district judge’s conduct did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion or apprehension of bias in a fair-minded and informed observer.
He said the views held by the judge by the time he came to the hearing were the result of his study and assessment of the written submissions.
He added that it was evident from the judge’s questions to Mr Loy at the April 27 hearing that he had considered the lawyer’s arguments but was not persuaded.
Turning to Mr Newton’s sentence, the Chief Justice noted that prosecutors had argued that HPB suffered potential reputational damage if members of the public questioned its ability to maintain an accurate repository of public health records.
But he said there was nothing to suggest that the inaccuracy was publicly perceived as anything other than an isolated error.
He added that in the light of how quickly Mr Newton’s attempt to beat the system had been uncovered and thwarted, the public would quite quickly have concluded that the safeguards in place were robust.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Jail for ex-lawyer who misappropriated almost $480k of clients’ money​

Gurdaib Singh Pala Singh, 70, committed the offences between 2011 and 2016. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

Jan 25, 2024

SINGAPORE – A former lawyer who misappropriated nearly $480,000 that three clients had entrusted to him was sentenced to three years and 11 months’ jail on Jan 25.
Gurdaib Singh Pala Singh, 70, committed the offences between 2011 and 2016.
Even though he was struck off the rolls in 2018, he continued to act as an advocate and solicitor for a man the following year.
In July 2023, Singh, who used to be a lawyer at Gurdaib Cheong & Partners (GCP), pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal breach of trust involving nearly $459,000 and an offence under the Legal Profession Act.
A third criminal breach of trust charge involving another $21,000 was considered during sentencing.
In December 2010, a man identified as Mr Zulkifli Osman engaged GCP to provide services relating to the sale of his late father’s flat.
The flat was sold on July 29, 2011, and GCP later received the sale proceeds of more than $356,000 on Mr Zulkifli’s behalf.

It was then agreed between Mr Zulkifli and Singh that out of that sum, Mr Zulkifli’s brother was to receive $138,876.50.
On Dec 15, 2011, Mr Zulkifli deposited $138,876 into GCP’s client account to be held in escrow as his brother’s share of the sales proceeds.
But between Dec 20, 2011, and May 3, 2012, Singh misappropriated Mr Zulkifli’s funds in GCP’s client account by issuing cheques for other purposes, such as paying the firm’s office expenses.

Unaware that the monies had been fully expended, Mr Zulkifli made three requests to Singh between August 2012 and July 2014 to withdraw a portion of it.
To meet the request, Singh disbursed a total of $10,156 to Mr Zulkifli by using money in the GCP client account that belonged to the firm’s other clients.
In June 2015, Mr Zulkifli asked Singh to withdraw the remaining $128,720 from the funds, but the offender failed to disburse any money to him.
In an unrelated case, a company called CH Assets International entered into a memorandum of agreement to borrow US$10 million (S$13.4 million) from United Kingdom-incorporated firm OCS Capital on Nov 5, 2014.
That same day, CH Assets and Singh signed an escrow agreement that the latter prepared.
Nine days later, CH Assets deposited $320,000 into GCP’s client account as a deposit for the loan.

In earlier proceedings, Deputy Public Prosecutor Norman Yew said that between Nov 18 and Dec 23, 2014, Singh misappropriated the monies and used them to pay for items such as GCP’s office expenses.
In June 2015, CH Assets asked Singh to return its funds as OCS Capital did not provide the loan to it.
After repeated requests for the money, Singh handed $5,000 to CH Assets in September 2015. CH Assets then alerted the Law Society of Singapore on Sept 15, 2015.
The DPP said that from September 2015 onwards, Singh made restitution totalling $58,000 to CH Assets over nine payments.
Singh was struck off the rolls on Feb 27, 2018.
Despite this, he agreed to represent a man in divorce proceedings after the latter met him in September 2019.
Singh did not tell him that he had been struck off the rolls.
Between Sept 7 and 27, 2019, the man paid him $1,750. The following month, Singh sent the man a draft affidavit which the former lawyer had prepared, and it was later filed with the courts.
Afterwards, Singh did not provide the man with any updates on the matter. On Jan 12, 2020, the man asked Singh for a full refund as he no longer wanted his services.
Singh has since returned $1,000 to him, said DPP Yew.
The former lawyer’s bail was set at $100,000 on Jan 25 and he is expected to surrender himself at the State Courts on Feb 15 to begin serving his sentence.

 

[blackmondy]

Lawyer who focused on molestation victim's breast size suspended for 5 years​

Lawyer Edmund Wong Sin Yee had defended a 24-year-old student from China who was accused of brushing his forearm against the breast of a 22-year-old woman on board an MRT train in July 2014. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Law Correspondent
UPDATED

MAY 3, 2018

SINGAPORE - A controversial lawyer who went on a "demeaning" line of questioning of a molestation victim, including staring at her breasts, was suspended for the maximum of five years on Wednesday (May 2) for professional misconduct.
The Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body for the legal profession, had harsh words for Mr Edmund Wong Sin Yee's "disgraceful" conduct and his "irrelevant and wholly impermissible" line of questioning, which Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon noted had the purpose of humiliating the victim.
To this day, Mr Wong, who was not present in court, maintains he had not done anything wrong, which the court said weighed against him.
"It is extremely difficult to reform one who does not appreciate the error of his ways," said the Chief Justice.
Mr Wong, who runs his own firm S Y Wong Law Chambers, had defended a 24-year-old student from China who was accused of brushing his forearm against the breast of a 22-year-old woman on board an MRT train in July 2014.
While he was cross-examining the victim during the trial in 2015, Mr Wong repeatedly asked the woman if she thought she was attractive and told her that he thought she was pretty.
He then commanded her to stand up and scrutinised her chest.

The victim, feeling offended, asked if this was necessary. Mr Wong retorted that he would be asking even more insulting questions.
When the district judge intervened, Mr Wong sought to justify his line of questioning.
"So I'm trying to put my case that, you know, looking at the day (how) she was dressed and... her breast size and all these things... whether there is temptation for anybody or the accused to do such a thing," he said.


Xu Jiadong was found guilty and jailed for five months by the district judge, who dedicated six pages of his grounds of decision to Mr Wong's "unacceptable" cross-examination.
The Attorney-General's Chambers lodged a complaint with the Law Society.
A disciplinary tribunal found Mr Wong's offensive line of questioning had breached professional conduct rules. The case was referred to the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.
On Wednesday, his lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam, said Mr Wong's focus on attractiveness was aimed at advancing the case that the woman was such a "plain Jane" that the accused had not even noticed her.
The argument did not go down well with the court.
"Are we in the business of beauty contests?" asked Chief Justice Menon.
Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash asked where he had got the idea that only attractive women were molested. She added it was not for Mr Wong to assess the victim's attractiveness but for his client to say so in his testimony.
Judge of Appeal Steven Chong questioned if anyone accused of molestation had ever successfully defended themselves by proving that the victim was "not sufficiently attractive" to be molested.
Mr Wong, who was called to the Bar in 1998, has a long list of past convictions going back more than 20 years. This includes incidents of violence, drug consumption, and abuse of public servants. He was also detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) between 2005 and 2012. He resumed practising law three years after his release.
The court said the totality of his conduct showed he had "no meaningful appreciation" of how a lawyer should conduct himself.
Although the question was raised as to whether he was fit to practise law, the judges said they had not struck him off the rolls as many of his violent antecedents were "somewhat dated".
The suspension takes effect in two weeks.
The court will issue detailed written grounds for its decision at a later date.

So my satirical wild guess was correct, neh-neh size of the molest victim does indeed matter when sentencing the molester.

Next question: Will the sentencing be different when touching a hairy pussy versus a shaven one ?

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Former NUS don Jeremy Fernando avoids jail sentence after compounding molestation charge​

Dr Jeremy Fernando was charged in March 2023 with one count of molestation. ST PHOTO: KELVIN CHNG

Shaffiq Alkhatib
Court Correspondent

SINGAPORE - Former National University of Singapore (NUS) lecturer Jeremy Fernando has avoided a potential prison sentence after his molestation charge was compounded, the terms of which were not mentioned in court.
Dr Fernando, who was also a Tembusu College fellow, was on Jan 29 granted a discharge amounting to an acquittal.
With this development, he cannot be charged again over the same offence.
The 44-year-old had been accused of outraging a woman’s modesty. Under the law, only certain offences can be compounded, such as causing hurt and outrage of modesty.
Compounding an offence requires an agreement with the victim to have the matter compensated, usually with a payment or an apology.
Before agreeing to the terms, the public prosecutor will also need to consider the public interest, circumstances of the offence and whether there are any aggravating factors.
The Straits Times has reached out to the Attorney-General’s Chambers about the compensation terms.

Dr Fernando, who was represented by lawyer Tan Jun Yin from Trident Law Corporation, was charged in March 2023 with one count of molestation.
He had been accused of molesting a woman by kissing her lips at around 4am on July 4, 2020. There is a gag order on the identity of the victim and the location of the alleged offence.
Both he and Ms Tan declined comment when asked about their reaction to the outcome of the case.
According to earlier reports, Dr Fernando was fired by NUS following an allegation of inappropriate behaviour. NUS also lodged a police report.
If convicted of molestation, an offender can be jailed for up to two years, fined, caned or receive any combination of such punishments.

 

[k1976]

This is a cover-up.
Who are these lawyers that the government and judiciary are protecting?

Six trainee lawyers who cheated in 2020 Bar exam have their admissions to the profession delayed​

The six had mostly trained in big and renowned firms. PHOTO ILLUSTRATION: PEXELS

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

APR 18, 2022

SINGAPORE - Six trainee lawyers here had their applications to be called to the Bar adjourned after they cheated in the professional Bar examination in 2020 - including on a paper on ethics and professional responsibility.
In the spirit of "second chances", a High Court judge directed that the six not be named in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run.
"In a profession in which every member must be like Caesar's wife - beyond reproach - dishonesty is a big problem. But it would also be harsh to have one's professional career ended before it has even begun," said Justice Choo Han Teck.
The six had mostly trained in big and renowned firms. Five of them are currently working as legal executives.
Five, who had shared answers in six papers through WhatsApp, had to retake the papers after they were found out.
The remaining one, who colluded with another person taking the exam and cheated in three of the papers, had to retake the entire preparatory course for what is known as Part B of the Bar exam.
They have all since passed the required exams, but their applications to be called to the Bar have been postponed - six months for the five and a year for the other.

Law graduates have to go through a six-month course and pass the Bar exam, known as Part B, as well as complete a six-month training contract with a law firm. They then qualify to be called to the Bar, which means they can practise as lawyers.
Graduates from approved foreign universities also have to take another exam known as Part A.
Applications have to be accepted by the Attorney-General (AG), the Singapore Institute of Legal Education (Sile) and the Law Society.

Twenty-six applicants to the Bar, including the six, had their Bar admissions hearings before Justice Choo last Wednesday (April 13).
The AG objected to the six applications because they had cheated in the Bar exam.
On Monday, the judge issued the grounds of decision to explain why he had agreed to a proposal by the AG for the applications to be adjourned.
Justice Choo said: "The AG was of the view that the applicants lacked honesty and integrity, and should not be admitted to the Bar, at least not for a while, since it is questionable whether they can presently swear the oath on admission which requires them to declare that they will 'truly and honestly conduct (themselves) in the practice of an advocate and solicitor according to the best of knowledge and ability and according to law'."
The one who was required to retake the entire course had denied any wrongdoing, unlike the five who admitted what they had done as soon as the institute began its inquiry.
She filed an affidavit apologising for her conduct only on April 11, two days before the admission hearing.
She explained that her answers were the same as the other person because they studied together and shared study notes.

The Sile, which conducts the exam and the preparatory course leading to the exam, rejected her explanation because her answers in the three papers were not just similar, but contained the same pattern and errors.
"They were not just similar but the same - warts and all. The Sile, however, gave her the benefit of the doubt in three other papers," said Justice Choo.
She was required to retake the entire Part B course, which comprises seven compulsory subjects, such as civil litigation practice, criminal litigation practice, family law practice and ethics and professional responsibility.
There are also electives such as mediation advocacy, the law and practice of arbitration, and wills, probate and administration practice. According to the Sile website, the Part B course and exam fees for 2021 were $6,420 for Singaporeans, $7,490 for permanent residents and $9,095 for foreign candidates.
Justice Choo said this incident has raised many questions about whether there is a culture of cheating.
"When so many applicants cheated in a professional qualifying examination in so many papers, including one for 'ethics and professional responsibility', then something is wrong somewhere," he said.
"Does the mode of present-day examinations make it more conducive for cheating? Have the examinees cheated because the modes of examinations in the law schools are similarly conducive for cheating?
"Furthermore, when a person cheats in a course meant to instil ethics and professional conduct, it raises the question, how is it that they had learnt so poorly from the course?"
Justice Choo noted that a lawyer who has acted dishonestly will be disciplined according to the process under the Legal Profession Act.
There is, however, no disciplinary process for a qualifying applicant to the Bar, except that the court hearing the application may refuse to admit the applicant.

Mr Jeyendran Jeyapal, representing the AG, had proposed the adjournment of the six's applications - not as a punishment, but for the six to "reflect on the error of their ways".
Justice Choo said: "He would be right because this is not a disciplinary proceeding before me."
Mr Christopher Daniel, counsel for the Law Society, and Ms Dew Wong, counsel for the institute, agreed with Mr Jeyendran, as did the six applicants, added the judge.
Justice Choo said: "(Judges) loath to shut the door on a wrongdoer with no prospects of redemption. But they also have a duty to prevent a repeat of the wrong, and to do so without breaking young backs in the process."
Justice Choo said Mr Jeyendran's proposal was fair and appeared to be the most viable option in the circumstances.
The judge said he was redacting the names of the applicants in the hope that they will not be prejudiced in the long run.
He directed that the court file be sealed, which means third parties cannot get documents filed in respect of the admissions.
"Second chances are for those who seize them. If ever they were to plead for a third, I wish them good luck."
Justice Choo warned that future cases may not be redacted, and the applications may be adjourned indefinitely.

How can any lowly peasant can suka suka dun trust our world class fairer than fair law system?

 

[Balls2U]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/sin...ustice-contraband-cigarette-syndicate-4133736

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Lawyer suspended for falsely attesting that documents were signed in her presence​

Ms Kasturibai Manickam, who has more than 25 years’ experience as a lawyer, had acted for a pair of siblings who were the registered owners of a condominium unit. PHOTO: ST FILE

Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

JAN 17, 2024

SINGAPORE – A lawyer who falsely attested that she had witnessed the signing of several documents, even though they had not actually been signed in her presence, was handed a one-year suspension on Jan 16.
The Law Society of Singapore had argued for 30 months’ suspension for Ms Kasturibai Manickam.
But the Court of Three Judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, said this was an instance of a “grave error of judgment” rather than a character defect.
There was no dispute that the documents were signed by the intended signatories, said the Chief Justice.
He said Ms Kasturibai’s error was to decide to attest that she witnessed the signing of the documents because she knew the parties and thought no harm would ensue.
Ms Kasturibai, who has more than 25 years’ experience as a lawyer, had acted for a pair of siblings who were the registered owners of a condominium unit.
Ms Santha Devi V. Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay and her brother, Mr Raman Puthenveetil Kesava Pillay, had sold the property in September 2020 to two individuals.

Ms Kasturibai’s firm, East Asia Law Corporation, had previously acted for the siblings in several matters prior to the sale of the property. Mr Raman’s wife was also a long-time employee of the law firm.
In the course of acting for the siblings, Ms Kasturibai prepared six documents for the transaction, which were all signed by Ms Santha Devi.
Between Sept 7, 2020, and Nov 5, 2020, Ms Kasturibai signed as a witness to Ms Santha Devi’s signature, even though the lawyer did not in fact witness the signing.

Five of the documents, including a transfer instrument, a seller’s stamp duty declaration, and a letter of authority for the sale proceeds to be paid to the firm, were sent to the law firm acting for the purchasers.
Ms Santha Devi later lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Ms Kasturibai, and a disciplinary tribunal was appointed in May 2022 to formally investigate the matter.
The tribunal’s report, issued in October 2022, did not elaborate on the events leading to the complaint.
During the tribunal hearing, Ms Kasturibai admitted that she signed as a witness to Ms Santha Devi’s signature despite not having witnessed the signing.
Ms Kasturibai’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, argued that she did not act for her personal benefit and that her motivation for doing so was to help her elderly clients avoid travel during the Covid-19 pandemic.
He also argued that there was very little harm caused, as the transaction was legitimate.

The tribunal found that Ms Kasturibai’s act of false attestation involved an element of dishonesty and constituted grossly improper conduct.
The tribunal found that the case was serious enough to be referred to the court, which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.
During the court hearing on Jan 16, Mr Sreenivasan said Ms Kasturibai would like to tender her deepest apologies to the court and to the profession.
The court allowed the suspension to take effect on March 7, to give her time to find another lawyer to take over her files.

 

[LexLuthor]

The report did not disclose why Ms Santha Devi decided to lodge a complaint against her lawyer.

Did she suddenly decide not to sell which she then used the "false attestation" as her escape door ? Or was she conned into signing the transfer documents by her brother ?

Found the answer - ”分赃不均“，client sabotaged lawyer because lawyer gave more money of the proceeds of sale to client's brother. KNN.

 

[Balls2U]

The report did not disclose why Ms Santha Devi decided to lodge a complaint against her lawyer.

Did she suddenly decide not to sell which she then used the "false attestation" as her escape door ? Or was she conned into signing the transfer documents by her brother ?

Found the answer - ”分赃不均“，client sabotaged lawyer because lawyer gave more money of the proceeds of sale to client's brother. KNN.

View attachment 196876

The Golden Rule for lawyers - Never trust your own clients. They can fuck you up properly.

 

[Patriotmissile]

Those sinkie lawyers mostly no integrity ones.

 

[LITTLEREDDOT]

Foreign worker injured badly while being transported in lorry allowed to resume suit against construction firm​

The accident flung the 34-year-old man upwards against the canopy in the back of the lorry and left him with injuries that required surgery and rendered him unfit for work.

Foreign workers being transported in the back of a lorry on Nov 17, 2021. (File photo: Calvin Oh/CNA)

Lydia Lam​

@LydiaLamCNA
27 Mar 2024

SINGAPORE: A 34-year-old foreign worker who was injured badly while being transported in the back of an open lorry has been allowed to reinstate his court action against the construction firm that employed him.
Mr Gurusamy Muthu Raja was terminated after being found unfit for work and repatriated to India, where he has been unable to find a permanent job.
In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Mar 27), District Judge Shen Wanqin allowed Mr Gurusamy's action to be reinstated despite it having been automatically discontinued in November 2023 due to lack of official follow-up.
Judge Shen said this case presents "a rare and exceptional situation in which it is just and necessary to reinstate the action".
"The accident robbed the plaintiff of his life and livelihood in Singapore, leaving him with no choice but to return to India. While his inaction during the critical period is not ideal, he did what he believed he could to progress the case with the cards he was dealt with in life. As such, his efforts should be recognised, and his inaction pardoned," she said.

THE CASE​

Mr Gurusamy was employed by Full House Building Construction at the time of the accident on Aug 29, 2019.
When the lorry driver braked abruptly, he was flung upwards in the back of the lorry and struck by the canopy system.
According to the judge, this accident struck Mr Gurusamy "at the prime of his life and left him with significant injuries to his right elbow and left shoulder" which required surgery.
After the accident, he was medically assessed and found to be unfit for work.
His employer terminated him and sent him back to India on Jan 16, 2021.
Mr Gurusamy is the sole breadwinner for his family. He is still receiving treatment for his injuries.
He commenced a court action against his former employer in June 2021 after he was repatriated home.
In November 2022, a consent judgment apportioned 95 per cent liability to his ex-employer, and 5 per cent to Mr Gurusamy.
After this, Mr Gurusamy engaged his former employer in negotiations to obtain an interim payment and took other steps to keep the case moving.
However, as no steps were recorded in the court's system between November 2022 and November 2023, the latter of which is known as the "guillotine date", the action was automatically discontinued on Nov 2, 2023.
Mr Gurusamy then applied in December 2023 to have the case reinstated.

JUDGE'S FINDINGS​

Judge Shen found that Mr Gurusamy had conducted the case expeditiously before November 2022 and that his inaction since then is excusable.
In closing, she noted that counsel for Mr Gurusamy, Mr Muhamad Ashraf Syed Ansari from Yeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation, had chosen to "focus their strategy on blaming the defendant for the delay in the proceedings" and for not disclosing a certain report.
On the other hand, counsel for the defendant, Mr Appoo Ramesh and Ms Ellice Kuah Jin Yu from Just Law, chose not to respond to the request for the report, claiming that no directions had been given by the court to mutually exchange relevant documents.
Judge Shen said the conduct by both parties was counterproductive to the efficient and effective resolution of the dispute.
After being told about this, both sides acknowledged they could have done better, the judge said.
"In fact, parties have shown, through their successful negotiations pertaining to the interim payment, that they can communicate and work professionally with each other to resolve an issue," said Judge Shen.
She added that this application could have been avoided altogether if both parties had adopted the same collaborative approach.
"If communication and collaboration are to happen only through the courts' directions, the very purpose of communication and collaboration will be defeated, and the beauty of such skills will be lost forever," she said.