ONG PEI QI, STASIA

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 61 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.

[2024] SGHC 61 High Court (General Division) 8 March 2024 • HC/AAS 317/2023 • 13 min read

3 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Catchwords

Legal Profession — Admission

Practice Areas

Legal Profession

Judges (1)

Sundaresh Menon Delivered

Counsel (12)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Avery Chong Law Practice Firm Chia Wong Chambers LLC Firm Salem Ibrahim LLC Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Chong Soon Yong Avery Counsel Singapore Institute Of Legal Education Chow Zi En Counsel Attorney-General Darryl Chew Zijie Counsel Law Society Of Singapore Elizabeth Tan Counsel Applicant Jeyendran Jeyapal Counsel Attorney-General Kimberly Ng Counsel Law Society Of Singapore Lim Wei Loong Ian Counsel Applicant

Parties (1)

Ong Pei Qi, Stasia Applicant

Case Significance

Re Ong Pei Qi Stasia [2024] SGHC 61 was decided by the General Division of the High Court on 8 March 2024, with Sundaresh Menon CJ delivering the grounds of decision after a hearing on 27 February 2024 in Admission of Advocates and Solicitors No 317 of 2023. The application, brought under section 12 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 and rule 25 of the Legal Profession (Admission) Rules 2011, sought the admission of Ms Ong Pei Qi Stasia as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court. In view of the applicant's academic misconduct during her studies at the National University of Singapore's Faculty of Law, the Attorney-General and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education had previously sought, with the applicant's agreement, an adjournment of five months, described as a "period of deferment" that ended on 20 January 2024. The misconduct related to an open-book examination the applicant sat on 28 April 2020 that accounted for 70% of her grade for a module. At the hearing, Sundaresh Menon CJ found the applicant to be a fit and proper person and admitted her as an advocate and solicitor. The applicant was represented by TSMP Law Corporation.

[2024] SGHC 61 explained

ONG PEI QI, STASIA ([2024] SGHC 61) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 8 March 2024. 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 [2024] SGHC 61 about?

ONG PEI QI, STASIA ([2024] SGHC 61) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. 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 [2024] SGHC 61 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 [2024] SGHC 61?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 61 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

Ms Ong Pei Qi Stasia applied to be admitted as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, her application having previously been deferred for five months in view of academic misconduct during her law studies at the National University of Singapore. The case concerned whether the applicant was a fit and proper person for admission following the period of deferment, which was described as serving rehabilitative rather than punitive purposes. Noting her candour, the lessons learnt during her training, the references provided and the absence of objection from the relevant stakeholders, the court found her fit and proper and admitted her to the Bar.

What did the court decide in Re Ong Pei Qi Stasia [2024] SGHC 61?

Sundaresh Menon CJ found Ms Ong Pei Qi Stasia to be a fit and proper person and admitted her as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court, despite earlier academic misconduct during her law studies at the National University of Singapore that had led to a five-month period of deferment.

What was the academic misconduct considered in [2024] SGHC 61?

The misconduct related to an open-book examination the applicant sat on 28 April 2020, which accounted for 70% of her grade for a module at the National University of Singapore's Faculty of Law. The Attorney-General and the Singapore Institute of Legal Education had sought a five-month deferment of her admission application.