Skip to main content

Can agent provocateur evidence be admitted in court? Law Society v Tan Phyllis

Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis
[2007] SGHC 207
Law Society of Singapore engaged Jenny, a private investigator, to obtain evidence that Tan’s law firm had been touting (paying for referrals) for conveyancing work, which his not allowed under the Law Society Rules. 
·         Jenny telephoned Tan, and claimed she was a real estate agent who might want to engage the law firm to act for her client in the purchase of a property.
·         Jenny secretly recorded that conversation on her audio recorder
·         Jenny also made a secret video recording of her meeting with Tan’s law firm, where they offered to pay her a referral fee for referring conveyancing work.to them.


The defence argued that the recordings should be excluded because they had been obtained illegally by Jenny. However, the court held that “Jenny’s conduct could not be said to be illegal for abetting the respondent to induce a private party (i.e. Jenny) to do a favour in exchange for a bribe or gratification.
·         First, Jenny did not have any corrupt intent in doing what she did as her only objective was to expose the professional misconduct of the respondent.
·         Thirdly, Jenny’s fake conveyancing transaction had not induced the law firm to offer the referral fee; the law firm was doing this anyway.
·         Accordingly, the evidence which Jenny obtained was rightly admitted into court. , even assuming that the law on entrapment and illegally
·         The Evidence Act stated that all relevant evidence was admissible it was unless specifically stated to be inadmissible.


Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comments.

Popular posts from this blog

Chapelton v Barry UDC (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr Chapelton went to a beach run by Barry UDC. See saw deckchairs. A notice next to them said,
"Barry Urban District Council. Cold Knap. Hire of chairs 2d. per session of 3 hours ... tickets should be obtained from attendants."  He got two chairs from an attendant, paid the money and got two tickets. He put them in his pocket. On the ticket was written,
"Available for three hours. Time expires where indicated by cut-off and should be retained and shown on request. The council will not be liable for any accident or damage arising from the hire of the chair."  When he sat on the chair it gave way and he was injured. Would the exemption clause work? The Court of Appeal held that Barry UDC made an offer when the chairs were on display, Mr Chapelton accepted when he picked up the chairs from the defendant, and the ticket was merely a receipt of the contract, so the exclusion clause could not be incorporated as a term, because it was too late.

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Words to Show Lee Kuan Yew's Impact on Singapore Economy

He led the team that turned mudflats into a metropolis, but could one graphic describe the impact that the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew had on Singapore? This one from the Economist does a pretty good job of representing it.

The underlying philosophy of the Visual Law School site is that complex issues and concepts (such as the law and legal principles) can be made more understandable by showing them in a visual or graphical format. This infographic will not replace the reams of text and hours of eulogies that will mark the life and impact the Mr Lee had on our country. But it is a relatively fair and balanced window into the story that helps to put that impact into a global and historical perspective. Read the full article at The Economist
Rest in Peace, Mr Lee, we will always be grateful for what you did.

Lim Geok Hian v Lim Guan Chin (Misrepresentation)

Lim Geok Hian (brother) convinced his sister Lim Guan Chin to sign a contract that : if their father bequeathed the family home to either of them, they would share the home equally instead. Actually, Lim Geok Hian already knew that his father had written a will bequeathing the entire house to Lim Guan Chin. But he expressedly or impliedly represented to her that it was likely that he would inherit the house. When the father died, Lim Geok Hian tried to enforce the contract. The Court of Appeal affirmed that since his sister was induced by the fraudulent misrepresentation to sign the contract, it could be set aside