Re Wee Harry Lee
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 13 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 44 of |
| Date | 13 July 1982 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1982] SGPC 7
Privy Council
Lord Diplock
,
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
and
Sir John Megaw
Privy Council Appeal No 44 of 1981
C Ross Munroe QC and H Page (Kingsford Dorman) for the appellant
J Grimberg and George Lim (Linklaters & Paines) for the respondent.
Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed) ss 84, 94, 98 (consd)
Legal Profession–Professional conduct–Grossly improper conduct–Criminal misappropriation of client moneys–Delay in reporting criminal breaches of trust committed by employee–Concurrent findings of fact by Disciplinary Committee and High Court as to reason for non-disclosure–Whether findings would be overturned–Sections 84, 94, 98 Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed)–Legal Profession–Professional conduct–Penalty for grossly improper conduct–Circumstances under which Privy Council would interfere with High Court's decision
The appellant advocate and solicitor was charged before a Disciplinary Committee (“DC”) for grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, by reason of his failure to make a timely report of his assistant's wrongdoing. In March 1976, the appellant discovered that one of his assistants had misappropriated a large amount from clients' accounts. He did not disclose this fact to the Law Society or the police until some 13 or 14 months later, during the course of which he endeavoured to obtain restitution from the errant assistant.
The DC rejected the appellant's evidence that his failure to report was a mere error of judgment, and found that the dominant motive for his non-disclosure to protect himself financially. The DC thus found that cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action under s 84 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 217, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the LPA”).
The DC's finding was brought before the High Court pursuant to ss 94 (1) and 98 of the LPA, and the High Court similarly rejected the appellant's evidence. The High Court ordered that the appellant be suspended from practice for two years.
The appellant appealed.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) There were concurrent findings of fact in relation to the appellant's motives for his delay in reporting his assistant's wrongdoing. Under such circumstances, it was the well-established and invariable practice of the Privy Council not to interfere, particularly as the finding was dependent upon the credibility of the oral evidence of the appellant as a witness: at [6].
(2)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Station Hotel Co v Malayan Railway Administration
-
The Law Society of Singapore v Edmund Nathan
...practice for two years (see [1981] 2 MLJ 215; [1980-1981] SLR 568). The appeal to the Privy Council was dismissed on 13 July 1982 (see [1982] 2 MLJ 293). (xv). On 26 August 1981 the disciplinary committee hearing the conviction charges reported to the Council that there was cause of suffici......
- SM Summit Holdings Ltd and Another v Public Prosecutor and another action
- Gulam bin Notan Mohd Shariff Jamalddin and Another v Public Prosecutor