TAY JIE QI
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| 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 — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (19)
Parties (2)
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.
[2023] SGHC 59 explained
TAY JIE QI ([2023] SGHC 59) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 9 March 2023. It is categorised under Legal Profession. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 59 about?
TAY JIE QI ([2023] SGHC 59) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Legal Profession — Admission”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 59 consider?
The judgment refers to Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2023] SGHC 59?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 59 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
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.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 59)