People's Parkway Development Pte Ltd v Ramanathan Yogendran

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 October 1990
• Date: 22 October 1990
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 579 of 1990
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

People's Parkway Development Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Ramanathan Yogendran

Defendant

[1990] SGHC 77

L P Thean J

Originating Summons No 579 of 1990

High Court

Legal Profession–Solicitor's undertaking–Construction of undertaking–Undertaking to pay on final adjudication of a dispute–Consent judgment obtained without notice to solicitor–Whether dispute finally adjudicated–Meaning of phrase “final adjudication of the dispute”–Words and Phrases–Meaning of the phrase “final adjudication of the dispute”

The plaintiff, People's Parkway Development Pte Ltd, sought to enforce an undertaking given by the defendant, a solicitor. The undertaking arose in relation to a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant's clients over a tenancy agreement made between them. The dispute revolved around whether the tenancy agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's clients ran from 1 June 1986 or 15 October 1986, and it was agreed that the matter ought to be referred for adjudication in the Subordinate Courts within 14 days of provision of a security. The defendant then undertook to provide the plaintiff with the security, which was a maximum of $100,000 on account of rent and service charges for the period from 1 June 1986 or 15 October 1986. This sum was recognised by the plaintiff and the defendant as the maximum sum which may be ordered against the defendant's clients “on final adjudication of the dispute”.

In April 1987, the defendant's clients had difficulties paying rent and service charges and surrendered the premises to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued the defendant's clients, claiming rent and service charges for the period from 1 June 1986 to 14 October 1986. However, in the interim, the defendant's clients were wound up.

The plaintiff then corresponded with the Official Receiver and liquidator, who replied that he would not be objecting to the plaintiff proceeding against the defendant's clients, and would consent to judgment with no costs against the defendant's clients. Subsequently, the plaintiff applied for and obtained consent judgment against the defendant's clients. However, the defendant was neither informed of this nor served with the plaintiff's application.

In the present action against the defendant, the issues were: (a) whether the defendant ought to have been informed and served with the plaintiff's application for consent judgment; (b) the meaning of the phrase “final adjudication of the dispute”; and (c) whether the dispute in respect of which the undertaking was given had been finally adjudicated.

Held, dismissing the plaintiff's application:

(1) By reason of his undertaking, the defendant solicitor was plainly interested in the dispute between the plaintiff and his clients. He was in a position analogous to a guarantor or an insurer of his clients and ought to be informed and served with the application for consent judgment. The defendant was not served with any notice of the application. He was not even informed at all of the application or the Official Receiver and liquidator's consent to judgment. So far as he was concerned, the dispute on which his client's liability depended and in respect of which he gave his undertaking had not been finally adjudicated: at [7] and [11].

(2) At the time the undertaking was given and accepted, the parties contemplated “an adjudication” of the dispute. The defendant's obligation on the undertaking was to be triggered off by an order made for payment to the plaintiff of the rent and service charges (for the period in question) of the premises “on a final adjudication of the dispute”: at [12].

(3) The expression “final adjudication of the dispute” did not mean a mere pronouncement or recording of a judgment. It meant “a consideration and determination of the dispute, involving the court exercising its mind on the dispute, examining the evidence, whatever may be the form of evidence, whether viva voce or affidavit evidence, applying the relevant law and finally giving a decision or judgment on the dispute”. In this case, there was no adjudication of the dispute within the meaning of the undertaking: at [20].

Burnaby v Robert Earle (1874) LR 9 QB 490 (distd)

Gurtner v Circuit [1968] 2 QB 587 (folld)

Idenden (A Bankrupt), Re [1970] 1 WLR 1015; [1970] 2 All ER 387 (folld)

Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 (folld)

Riddell, In re; ex parte Earl of Strathmore (1888) 20 QBD 512 (distd)

South American and Mexican Company,In re; ex parteBank of England [1895] 1 Ch 37 (distd)

Rules of the Subordinate Courts1986O 15r 6 (2)

David Liew (Robert WH Wang & Woo) for the plaintiff

Sivagnanam Santhiran (Santhiran & Partners) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean J

1 By this originating summons the plaintiffs seek to enforce an undertaking given by the defendant, a solicitor then practising under the name and style of Yogen & Partners. The undertaking was given by the defendant in relation to a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant's clients, Clement D'Cruz Food (S) Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (“the company”) over a tenancy agreement made between them in respect of the premises unit 01-01/02, Parkway Builders' Centre. The undertaking was contained in an exchange of telexes between the plaintiffs' then solicitor, Mr P Balachandran, and the defendant. It started with the telex from Mr Balachandran to the defendant on 22 September 1986, which, so far as material, is as follows:

Re: Unit 01-01/02 Parkway Builders' Centre

Following discussions between the principals of our respective firms on 19 September 1986, the following terms were agreed in relation to the tenancy of the abovementioned premises (the premises) subject to our respective clients' confirmation:

1. (1) The dispute between our respective clients on whether the tenancy runs from 1 June 1986 as previously agreed or 15 October 1986 (as your clients now claim it should be) shall be referred to adjudication in the Subordinate Courts within 14 days of...