TAY JIE QI

[2023] SGHC 59 High Court (General Division) 9 March 2023 HC/AAS 410/2022 · HC/AAS 572/2022

3 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	9 March 2023
Judge	Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Legal Profession
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Avery Chong Law Practice, Chia Wong Partnership LLC, Drew & Napier LLC, Harry Elias Partnership LLP, Jacob Mansur & Pillai, Kalco Law LLC, Andrew Chua Ruiming, Avery Chong Soon Yong, Clement Lim, Darryl Chew Zijie, Jeyendran Jeyapal, Lee Hui Min, Lum Qian Wei, Mansurhusain Akbar Hussein, Randhawa Ravinderpal Singh s/o Savinder Singh Randhawa, Remesha Chandran Pillai, Sui Yi Siong, Yeo Kee Teng Mark

Source: [2023] SGHC 59, High Court (General Division), decided 9 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Legal Profession — Admission

Practice Areas

Legal Profession

Judges (1)

Sundaresh Menon Delivered

Counsel (19)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Avery Chong Law Practice Firm

Chia Wong Partnership LLC Firm

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Harry Elias Partnership LLP Firm Jacob Mansur & Pillai Firm Kalco Law LLC Firm Andrew Chua Ruiming Counsel for the third party

Avery Chong Soon Yong Counsel for the third party

Clement Lim Counsel for the third party

Darryl Chew Zijie Counsel for the third party Jeyendran Jeyapal Counsel for the third party Lee Hui Min Counsel for the third party Lum Qian Wei Counsel for the third party Mansurhusain Akbar Hussein Counsel for the applicant

Randhawa Ravinderpal Singh s/o Savinder Singh Randhawa Counsel for the applicant

Remesha Chandran Pillai Counsel for the applicant

Sui Yi Siong Counsel for the third party

Yeo Kee Teng Mark Counsel for the applicant

Parties (2)

Low Shauna Applicant

Tay Jie Qi Applicant

Case Significance

Re Tay Jie Qi and another matter [2023] SGHC 59 was an ex tempore judgment of the General Division of the High Court (Sundaresh Menon CJ) delivered on 9 March 2023, in Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 410 and 572 of 2022. The applications by Tay Jie Qi (AAS 410) and Low Shauna (AAS 572), brought under section 12 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 and rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, concerned their admission to the roll of advocates and solicitors. The Chief Justice noted these applicants, unlike those in Re Tay Quan Li Leon, Re Wong Wai Loong Sean and Re Monisha Devaraj, did not cheat in their Part B examinations but had committed certain wrongdoings some years before their applications.

Summary

This ex tempore judgment concerned two applications for admission to the roll of advocates and solicitors by Tay Jie Qi and Low Shauna, who had voluntarily disclosed earlier misconduct that predated their applications. The court considered whether their past wrongdoing, viewed with the passage of time and their candid disclosures, barred admission. The Chief Justice allowed both applications, finding the applicants had demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation, and transparency, with no objections from the relevant stakeholders.

What did Re Tay Jie Qi [2023] SGHC 59 concern?

It concerned two applications for admission to the roll of advocates and solicitors by Tay Jie Qi and Low Shauna under section 12 of the Legal Profession Act 1966, where each applicant had committed wrongdoings some years before applying, unrelated to the 2020 Part B examination controversy.

Who heard the admission applications in Re Tay Jie Qi [2023] SGHC 59?

Sundaresh Menon CJ heard Admission of Advocates and Solicitors Nos 410 and 572 of 2022 in the General Division of the High Court, delivering an ex tempore judgment on 9 March 2023 distinguishing the applicants from those in Re Leon Tay and related cases.