(delivering the Judgment of the Board): This is an appeal by an advocate and solicitor ("the solicitor") of the Republic of Singapore from an order of the High Court directing that he be struck off the roll of advocates and solicitors. The solicitor has put forward four grounds of appeal:—

(a) that in the circumstances of this case the Law Society, the respondent to his appeal, had no right to apply to the High Court for the order and that the High Court had no jurisdiction to make it (the jurisdiction point):

(b) that there was a failure of natural justice in the proceedings before the High Court:

(c) that the High Court failed to apply its mind "properly" to the findings of the Disciplinary Committee which had investigated the matter:

(d) that in any event the penalty of striking off was too severe in the circumstances.

The jurisdiction point is a pure question of statutory construction. Was the Law Society entitled to apply to the court under section 97 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 217), "the Act"? If the Society was not so entitled, the appeal has to be allowed: for, as Lai Kew Chai J. who delivered the judgment of the High Court recognised, "the entire proceedings [would] fail in limine". Their Lordships, therefore, decided to hear argument first on the jurisdiction point, treating it as a preliminary question, which indeed it is. After hearing full argument their Lordships concluded that in the circumstances of this case the High Court acted without jurisdiction, and that the appeal would have to be allowed. Their Lordships have not, therefore, given any consideration to the other grounds of appeal. The merits of the case for or against the solicitor have not been canvassed before their Lordships, who accordingly express no view upon any of the matters in issue other than the jurisdiction point. Upon conclusion of argument on the point, their Lordships announced their decision to allow the appeal, indicating that they would give their reasons later. This they now do.

The course of the proceedings in the case can be shortly stated. The appellant was admitted a solicitor (their Lordships will use this abbreviation for "advocate and solicitor") on July 11, 1973. On November 14, 1981 he was convicted by a district judge of an offence of cheating contrary to section 420 of the Penal Code. His appeal against conviction was dismissed on October 20, 1982.

Upon application by the Council of the Society pursuant to section 86(5) of the Act the Chief Justice appointed a Disciplinary Committee to hear and investigate the matter. The Society had the conduct of the proceedings as plaintiff or applicant (both terms are used) before the Committee. After a full hearing the Committee on July 2, 1983 determined that, while no cause of sufficient gravity existed for disciplinary action to be ordered against the solicitor by the Supreme Court under section 84(1) of the Act, the solicitor should be reprimanded; and the Committee reprimanded him.

Dissatisfied with the determination of the Committee, and being, as the Society submits, a person who had made the written application or complaint, the Society on July 15, 1983 applied to a judge of the High Court under section 97 of the Act for a review of the determination and for an order of the court directing the Society to make an application under section 98 of the Act.

On December 2, 1983 the High Court set aside the determination of the Disciplinary Committee and directed the Society to make an application to the court under section 98 for the solicitor to show cause why he should not be dealt with under section 84(1) of the Act; the sub-section empowers the Supreme Court upon cause shown to order that a solicitor be struck off, suspended from practice, or censured. The Society thereupon made application under section 98: the High Court ordered the solicitor to show cause: and on September 3, 1984 the High Court ordered that he be struck off.

The issue in the appeal is whet