Riaz LLC v Sharil bin Abbas

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2013
• Date: 05 September 2013
• Docket Number: Bill of Costs No 193 of 2012 (Summons No 3323 of 2013)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Riaz LLC

Plaintiff

and

Sharil bin Abbas (through his deputy and litigation representative, Salbeah bte Paye)

Defendant

[2013] SGHC 167

Choo Han Teck J

Bill of Costs No 193 of 2012 (Summons No 3323 of 2013)

High Court

Legal Profession—Bill of costs—Warrant to act for first set of solicitors signed by person without mental capacity—Action commenced but later changed to reflect legal representative on advice of second set of solicitors—Whether first set of solicitors entitled to costs

The applicant was a firm of solicitors seeking a review of the assistant registrar's decision disallowing their bills of costs in relation to Suit No 539 of 2009 (‘S 539’). The respondent was the plaintiff in S 539. The respondent was involved in a road traffic accident and suffered brain damage. A doctor's report stated that the respondent's lack of mental capacity as a result would have been obvious to a reasonable person. The respondent nonetheless signed a warrant to act with the applicant by affixing his thumbprint to the document. His mother also affixed a signature. The applicant then commenced S 539. His mother, however, was not satisfied with the applicant's conduct of S 539. She consulted a second set of lawyers who advised her to apply to be the respondent's litigation representative under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177 A, 2010 Rev Ed). The mother did so and discharged the applicant. The mother's new solicitors amended S 539 to reflect that the respondent was suing through his litigation representative. S 539, as amended, was subsequently settled. The applicant rendered their bill of costs but the mother disputed the bill on the basis that the warrant to act was voidable as the respondent did not have the capacity to engage the applicant. The assistant registrar agreed with the mother and disallowed the applicant's bill.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The basis of taxation of a bill of costs was not whether there was a separate contractual basis for payment but whether the solicitor seeking payment had been authorised to conduct the matter in question. A solicitor could not get costs from someone who was not his client in a matter which he had not been authorised to prosecute or defend: at [6] .

(2) As a warrant to act was only evidence of a solicitor's authority to act, a challenge to the validity of a warrant to act was also a challenge to the solicitor's authority to represent his ‘client’ in that matter. As the respondent did not have the mental capacity to authorise the applicant to commence S 539, S 539 had to be amended in order to proceed and not be struck out. The respondent could not thus be said to be the applicant's client and the applicant was not entitled to costs. This would be the case irrespective of whether the contract was void or voidable: at [7] .

(3) The mother did not sign the warrant to act as the respondent's agent and thus there was no other basis for the solicitor's authority to act: at [8]

(4) Taxation of a bill of costs was an inappropriate procedure to enforce a settlement agreement or to claim quantum meruit on a quasi-contract with a person...