[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
46 There is an emerging trend in some jurisdictions towards recognising
that champertous fee agreements properly regulated can help indigent litigants
gain access to justice. As Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers noted in R
(Factortame Ltd) v Transport Secretary (No 8) [2003] 1 QB 381 (at 408):
Conditional fees are now permitted in order to give effect to
another facet of public policy – the desirability of access to
justice. Conditional fees are designed to ensure that those who
do not have the resources to fund advocacy or litigation
services should none the less be able to obtain these in
support [of] claims which appear to have merit.
So too, in Singapore, has there been some push to reform the law in this
direction. But we reiterate two points: first, it is for Parliament, rather than the
courts, to decide whether and when such a reform is to be undertaken; and
second, any such reform would almost certainly feature carefully drawn
parameters that regulate the extent to which such fee arrangements would be
permitted and this makes it a subject more suited for the legislature rather than
for the courts to develop.
Aggravating factors
47 We return to the facts of the case. It is helpful first to frame the proper
context in which mitigating or aggravating factors may affect the balance of
considerations that are relevant to sentencing in disciplinary proceedings.
48 A court that exercises disciplinary jurisdiction is likely to view
mitigating factors in a qualitatively different light than would a court in the
exercise of its criminal jurisdiction: see Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu
Xian Rick [1999] 3 SLR(R) 68 at [22]:
Because orders made by a disciplinary tribunal are not
primarily punitive, considerations which would ordinarily
weigh in mitigation of punishment have less effect on the
exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction than on sentences
26