This is an application by the first defendant for an order that judgment in default of defence entered against the first defendant on August 17, 1985 be set aside and the costs of the application be costs in the cause.

Mr. V.N. Kumar, counsel for the first defendant, submitted that the judgment entered against the first defendant was an irregular judgment. His ground for saying that the judgment was irregular was that the plaintiff had not complied with Rule 56 of the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "Practice and Etiquette Rules 1978"). According to Mr. Kumar the plaintiff did not deny that it had not complied with Rule 56. In his affidavit in support of the application, Mr. Kumar stated that his firm was appointed by the first defendant to act as solicitors and a memorandum of appearance was filed and served on the plaintiff's solicitors. Mr. Kumar submitted that the Practice and Etiquette Rules have the force of law and where there was a mandatory prohibition as contained in Rule 56, any judgment entered without complying with the Rule would be irregular.

Rule 56 states:

"Where the name of the advocate and solicitor or his firm appears on the Court record or the fact of representation is known to the other side, no advocate and solicitor representing the other party to the proceedings shall enter judgment by default against the client of the first-named advocate and solicitor or to take advantage of delay in pleading or filing documents in the nature of pleadings or in taking any necessary steps or in complying with any other in the proceedings by such first-named advocate and solicitor, unless he shall have given to such first-named advocate and solicitor written notice of his intention to do so, and forty-eight hours shall have elapsed after the delivery of such notice to the first-named advocate and solicitor."

It is not in dispute that the Practice and Etiquette Rules have the force of law. The Rules were made by the Bar Council in pursuance of the powers conferred upon it by section 77 of the Legal Profession Act, 1976. In Re S Fung, A Solicitor [1941] MLJ 173, the Court held that the Rules regulating the practice and etiquette of the Singapore Bar which had been made under section 31(1)(a) of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance had the force of law.

The question to be considered here is whether non-compliance with Rule 56 renders the judgment obtained in default of defence an irregular judgment.

The Practice and Etiquette Rules, 1978 were made by the Bar Council for the purpose of "regulating the professional practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline of advocates and solicitors." See section 77(1) of the Legal Profession Act. Sub-section (3) of section 77 of the Act states that any advocate and solicitor who fails to comply with the said Rules may be liable for disciplinary proceedings.

In Re S. Fung, A Solicitor, supra, the respondent did not keep a separate client's account with a bank as required by the Rules regulating the practice and etiquette of the Singapore Bar made under section 31(1)(a) of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance. The Court found that the conduct of the respondent was in breach of the Rules and ordered that he be suspended from practice for a period of nine months.

In Re Lim Keng Kooi, An Advocate and Solicitor [1941] MLJ 217, the respondent did not keep a separate client's account with a bank as required by Rule 10 of the Penang Bar Committee Rules regulating the practice and etiquette of the Penang Bar made under section 31 of the Advocates and Solicitors Ordinance. The Court held that the respondent had been guilty of grossly improper conduct.

In my opinion, the Practice and Etiquette Rules, 1978 only regulate the professional practice, etiquette, conduct and discipline of an advocate and solicitor. The Rules do not regulate the procedure of legal proceedings in the High Court. Indeed, the Bar Council has no power under t