The Law Society of Singapore v Ng Kai Ming

[2026] SGHC 151 High Court (General Division) 16 July 2026 HC/OA 204/2026

8 cases cited

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 13–19 July 2026 →

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	16 July 2026
Judge	Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Legal Profession
Counsel	Helmsman LLC, Chen Zhida, Ong Ming En, Darryl

Source: [2026] SGHC 151, High Court (General Division), decided 16 July 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Legal Profession — Unqualified persons acting — How section 33 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) should be interpreted Legal Profession — Disciplinary procedures — Whether leave to investigate complaint of misconduct against non-practicing solicitor should be granted despite delay

Practice Areas

Legal Profession

Judges (1)

Sundaresh Menon Delivered

Counsel (3)

Helmsman LLC Firm Chen Zhida Counsel for the applicant

Ong Ming En, Darryl Counsel for the applicant

Parties (2)

The Law Society of Singapore Applicant

Ng Kai Ming Respondent

Case Significance

The Law Society of Singapore v Ng Kai Ming [2026] SGHC 151 was decided by Sundaresh Menon CJ in the General Division of the High Court on 16 July 2026, after an ex parte hearing on 21 May 2026. The Law Society applied under s 82A(5) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) for permission for a disciplinary tribunal to investigate a complaint that Mr Ng, a non-practising solicitor, acted as an advocate and solicitor between June 2017 and September 2019 without a practising certificate. The issues were the interpretation of s 33 of the Act and whether permission should be granted despite delay. The court found a prima facie case, held that the balance favoured investigation, and allowed the application, reserving costs to the disciplinary tribunal.

What was The Law Society of Singapore v Ng Kai Ming [2026] SGHC 151 about?

The Law Society sought permission for a disciplinary tribunal to investigate a complaint that Ng Kai Ming, a non-practising solicitor, advised on and drafted court documents for a client's divorce proceedings between June 2017 and September 2019 without a practising certificate.

What did the High Court decide in [2026] SGHC 151?

Sundaresh Menon CJ allowed the application, finding a prima facie case of the alleged misconduct and that the balance on delay favoured investigation. Costs were reserved to the disciplinary tribunal or, if the matter proceeds beyond that, to the Court of Three Judges.