Re Caplan Jonathan Michael QC (No 2)

• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 01 November 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 285
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 285
• Date: 01 November 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Yang Ing Loong (Lee & Lee),Davinder Singh SC and Joseph Kan (Drew & Napier)
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 34 of 1997
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether difficult or complex points of law and/or facts have been be raised at trial,Admission,s 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1994 Ed),Whether applicant possesses necessary experience,Three-stage test for admission,Ad hoc,Whether circumstances of case warrant court exercising discretion in favour of admission,Legal Profession

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This was an application by Mr Jonathan Michael Caplan QC, who sought to be admitted for the purpose of appearing on behalf of the defendants in High Court Suit No 1112/96. I granted the application after hearing the submissions of his counsel as well as the submissions of counsel for the plaintiffs and those of the representatives from the Attorney General`s Chambers and the Law Society. I now give my reasons in writing.

2. The facts of Suit No 1112/96

The defendants in Suit No 1112/96 are both businessmen resident in Hong Kong. The plaintiffs are, respectively, a company formerly called Eng Kheng Management Consultants Pte Ltd and now known as Etons Management Consultants Pte Ltd (the first plaintiffs); a company formerly called Eng Kheng Overseas Projects Pte Ltd and now known as Stone Overseas Projects Pte Ltd (the second plaintiffs); and one Chan Kung Git, a local businessman (the third plaintiff). The first and second plaintiffs belong to a group of companies referred to by the parties as the `Eng Kheng Group`. It is presently owned by the third plaintiff and his immediate family members, with the exception of one Patrick Chan, the third plaintiff`s eldest son and an important figure in the dispute between the parties.

3.The dispute arises primarily from agreements entered into between the parties in connection with the development of three commercial and retail projects in Shanghai. These were: the New Time Plaza Project; the Mayflower Project; and the Chinese Children`s Project.

4.The plaintiffs` claim is based on the defendants` alleged contractual obligations in respect of the New Time Plaza Project and the Mayflower Project. The plaintiffs assert that Patrick Chan acted as the defendants` agent in conveying to the third plaintiff the defendants` interest in participating in the development of both projects. According to the plaintiffs, oral agreements were entered into between the parties whereby the defendants were, inter alia, obliged to contribute certain funds towards the completion of the projects; to pay the various sub-contractors involved in the projects; and - in respect of the Mayflower Project - to procure tenants. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants are in breach of these contractual obligations. They seek an order for specific performance of these obligations by the defendants; further or in the alternative, damages for the defendants` breach of contract.

5.The defendants, for their part, deny that the terms of the agreements are as spelt out in the plaintiffs` statement of claim. The defendants further deny that Patrick Chan was at any time their agent. Instead, according to the defendants, he was the plaintiffs` agent; and it was he who first sought out the defendants in the hope of persuading them to invest in the plaintiffs` development ventures in Shanghai. According to the defendants, it was envisaged that the New Time Plaza Project and the Mayflower Project would be developed in a joint venture with certain Chinese parties; and the defendants agreed to invest in these projects only on the basis that they would be given shareholding interests in the company designated as the Chinese parties` joint venture partner. The defendants contend that it is the plaintiffs who breached the agreements by failing to ensure that the defendants were given such interests. They are counterclaiming for damages in respect of the plaintiffs` breach of contract.

6.There is a further allegation that in respect of the New Time Plaza Project, the third plaintiff requested reimbursement of large sums from the defendants, which sums the third plaintiff represented as relocation costs. The defendants claim that after reimbursing the third plaintiff, they discovered that the relocation costs had in fact been paid, not by the third plaintiff, but by the Chinese parties in the joint venture.

7.In addition to the above, the defendants` counterclaim raises matters relating to two other agreements: one being the agreement relating to a project known as the Children`s Corner Project, the other being the `Shanghai Jacks` agreement.

8.In respect of the Children`s Corner Project, the defendants allege that this was a project involving the participation of, inter alia, the third plaintiff and the defendants themselves. As part of the agreement relating to the project, the defendants remitted funds to the account of a Hong Kong company controlled by the third plaintiff and his wife. These funds were purportedly required for relocation costs. The defendants allege that these relocation costs were in fact never paid because the project could not be proceeded with. They pray, therefore, that the funds remitted be returned to them. In response, the plaintiffs have alleged that it was an implied term of the agreement that the defendants would lose their investment if the project failed; and that as it turned out, the Children`s Corner Project was aborted due to changes in Chinese central government policies. In the alternative, the plaintiffs...