Lau Liat Meng & Co v Lum Kai Keng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 159
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 159
• Defendant Counsel: Wong Siew Hong (Infinitus Law Corp),Lau Liat Meng in attendance
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Arul (C Arul & Partners)
• Date: 25 July 2002
• Docket Number: Bill of Costs No 600475 of 2001
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Taxation,Nature of such bill,O 59 r 28(4) Rules of Court,Duty of lawyer to draw up bill clearly and accurately,Costs,Interim bill,Whether Rules of Court allow lawyer to submit larger bill subsequent to interim bill for same period,Civil Procedure,Review of taxation,Whether proper for lawyer to submit such bill and reserve right to present further bill covering the same period,Whether assistant registrar right in taking into account interim bills in taxing lawyer's bill,O 59 r 36 Rules of Court,Nature of hearing of such review

JUDGMENT GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an application and cross-application for a review of taxation of costs of the applicant Lau Liat Meng & Co the solicitors for the respondent Lum Kai Keng. The bill of costs 600475 of 2001 was rendered in respect of solicitor and client costs covering the period 26 February 1998 and 28 February 2000.

2. The taxation was conducted over three special half-day hearings. In the bill the amount claimed under section 1 was $220,000 being a rounded figure based on the agreed rate of $500 an hour. The applicant submitted a claim based on 446 hours’ work. The assistant registrar taxed off $110,000 and allowed $110,000. On review, she declined to vary this sum, but increased the sum under section 2 from $1,200 to $1,500. Both parties applied to review the taxed costs.

3. The work done was essentially advisory in nature and concerned the administration of the estate of the respondent’s deceased husband. The matter became highly contentious and the respondent had since commenced litigation against her son and daughter, as well as the Keppel Tatlee Bank Ltd. The court action was commenced by another firm of solicitors. That part of it is not relevant for the purposes of this review.

4. It is relevant, however, to note that KS Chung was engaged by the respondent as a second counsel on 23 November 1999. It was he who commenced action after the respondent terminated the services of Lau Liat Meng & Co. Mr. Andre Arul appeared in this review as counsel for Lau Liat Meng & Co. He emphasized that the issues involved in the advice to Madam Lum were complex and therefore substantial costs ought to be ordered. Furthermore, he asserted that the costs were agreed at $500 an hour and therefore, under O 59 r 58, the court ought to give effect to this agreement.

5. There were two interim bills rendered by Lau Liat Meng & Co. The first was dated 14 December 1999 for $15,000 in respect of "professional services rendered from March 1998 until 25 October 1999". This bill was paid on 26 October 1999. The second bill was undated but counsel said that it was rendered about the end of December 1999, which meant that it would have been rendered about two weeks after the first. This bill was for $30,000 which was also paid. There was a letter dated 4 December 1999 in which Lau Liat Meng & Co wrote to Madam Lum thanking her for her cheque for $30,000 "to account of [their] professional services".

6. 2 to 4 of that letter states as follows:

"2. As we have explained to you your above case is full of complexities. We have attended on you on at least 30 hours (the details of which we have not worked out) our fees are approximately in the region of $450 to $1,500 per hour.

3. We know that the court has allowed very much more higher fee (sic). As soon as the above matter is settled we shall render to you either a detailed or summary of the bill.

4. We have not taken into consideration of the numerous hours spent on studying the documents received by us, the getting up and the letters forwarded to various solicitors and to your goodself."

Mr. Arul pressed on with the review on the grounds that he work done was substantial and amounted to 446 hours. He submitted that since the respondent was made aware of the hourly rate of $500, that should be treated as a contractual rate and enforced as such. He referred me to O 59 r 28(2)(a) which provides as follows:

"28 (2) On a taxation to which this Rule applies, costs shall be taxed on the indemnity basis but shall be presumed –

(a) to have been reasonably incurred if they were incurred with the express or implied approval of the client."

7. Mr. Arul also drew my attention to O 59 r 28 (4) which says that the "delivery of a bill of costs by a solicitor to his client shall not preclude the solicitor from presenting a bill for a larger amount or otherwise for taxation, if taxation is ordered by the court or is consented to by the solicitor and his client".

8. The result, according to Mr. Arul, is that the assistant registrar was wrong not to have applied the contractual rate, and was wrong to have taken the two interim bills into account. The third major objection by Mr. Arul of the taxation was that the assistant registrar was wrong to have dismissed 210 hours of work claimed under sub-item 10 of the bill and referred to in 10 of her grounds of decision. This item concerned (according to the bill) work done "from commencement of November 1999 to February 2000". It was mainly in respect of work done in corresponding with client and the solicitors of the other parties involved. It was also during this period when Tan Geok Ser was briefed as a counsel but his fees were being settled separately,...