Tan & Au LLP v Goh Teh Lee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 25 June 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGHC 130
• Plaintiff Counsel: Christopher Anand Daniel and Ganga Avadiar (Advocatus Law LLP)
• Docket Number: Suit No 606 of 2010
• Date: 25 June 2012
• Hearing Date: 19 July 2011,18 July 2011,20 July 2011,31 August 2011
• Subject Matter: negligence,Tort
• Published date: 20 September 2012
• Citation: [2012] SGHC 130
• Defendant Counsel: The defendant in person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2012

Judith Prakash J: Introduction

This action started in the Subordinate Courts as a claim by a firm of solicitors against a former client for payment of their fees. The defendant resisted the claim vigorously and mounted a counterclaim for damages, both against the firm and one of its partners, on the basis that as a result of the negligent handling of his case, he had sustained loss. The action was subsequently transferred to the High Court.

The plaintiff in the original action is Tan & Au LLP (“the firm”), a firm of solicitors in which the partners are Tan Beng Hui Carolyn (“Ms Tan”) and Tony Au Thye Chuen (“Mr Au”) who are also husband and wife. The defendant in the original action and the plaintiff in the counterclaim is Goh Teh Lee (“Mr Goh”) who was the firm’s client between about June 2007 and March 2009.

The firm’s claim is for the sum of $27,203.66 being fees and disbursements payable under two invoices rendered on 25 November 2008 and 23 March 2009 and includes a sum of interest claimed against the firm by Merill Legal Solutions.

Mr Goh’s claim is for losses suffered by reason of professional negligence on the part the firm, in particular, Ms Tan. Mr Goh has quantified his loss as being the sum of $200,000 which he asserted that he would have accepted in settlement of his claim had he been correctly been advised and for further sums incurred as legal costs and disbursements which he would not have incurred had it not been for the wrong advice he was given. It bears mention that at all material times during these proceedings, Mr Goh acted in person.

Background

In June 2007, Mr Goh and his ex-wife, Mdm Sng Siok Ching (“Mdm Sng”), were the co-owners under a joint tenancy of the property known as unit 136D Koon Seng House (“the unit”).

The unit was one of the 24 apartment units comprising Koon Seng House, a 4 storey block of flats, which was built on one piece of freehold land which also contained nine terrace houses (Koon Seng House and the terrace houses are hereafter collectively called “the development”). The flats were not strata subdivided but were comprised in 999,999 year leases with no share in the land. The nine terrace houses were owned by the landowner. This statement of facts is taken from the judgment of Andrew Ang J in Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and others [2010] 1 SLR 1041 (“Goh Teh Lee HC”) which also contains in [4] thereof a history of how the development came about.

Most of the apartment owners were keen on achieving a collective sale of the development. The landowner was also in favour of the sale. By late June 2007 when Mr Goh first approached the firm to act for him, the only persons opposing the collective sale were Mr Goh and the owners of apartments 134A, 134H and 136H. Mdm Sng had moved out of the unit some time previously and she had agreed to the collective sale.

Mr Goh asked Ms Tan to give him legal advice on the actions and steps taken by the sale committee formed by some of the owners in the development to achieve a collective sale of the development.

On 16 April 2008, the sale committee applied to the Strata Titles Board (“the Board”) for an order allowing them to proceed with the sale. This application, STB 33 of 2008 (“STB 33”), was required because not all the owners of the development had agreed to the sale. On 24 April 2008, the firm acting on behalf of Mr Goh filed written objections to the collective sale (“the Objections”) before the Board.

Prior to the hearing of STB 33, two mediation sessions were held. The first mediation session was held on 28 May 2008. Present were Mr Goh and both partners of the firm as well as the members of the tribunal appointed by the Board to hear STB 33. At that time, there were two other dissenting owners, Mr and Mrs Han, and they and their lawyer were also present at the first mediation session.

In May 2008, the owners of each apartment in the development stood to receive a sum of about $642,000 for that apartment if the collective sale was completed. As an incentive to Mr Goh and the Hans and with the consent of the proposed purchaser of the development, Mr Leong Kwok Yan (“Mr Leong”), the solicitor representing the majority owners, offered Mr Goh and the Hans $800,000 for their respective apartments if they were to withdraw their objections to the collective sale. Subsequently, Mr Leong wrote to Mdm Sng’s lawyers in the divorce proceedings making an offer of $200,000 above the original price for the unit. This offer was conveyed to the firm as well on 5 June 2008.

Mdm Sng found the offer acceptable and signed the collective sale agreement but no reply was received from Mr Goh or the firm on his behalf. When the tribunal was informed of this non acceptance, it proceeded to give directions for the hearing.

Mr Goh’s Objections were heard by the tribunal on 3 and 4 December 2008. By that time, he was the sole dissenting owner. Ms Tan represented him before the tribunal. The result of the hearing was in favour of the sale committee and the tribunal ordered the collective sale to proceed.

Mr Goh then instructed the firm to appeal the decision in STB 33. On 29 December 2008, the firm filed an originating summons (OS 1627 of 2008) (“OS 1627”) in the High Court for the setting aside of the order made by the Board.

Thereafter, the firm requested Mr Goh to place it in funds to continue representing him in OS 1627 and to pay the outstanding bills. No payment was received from Mr Goh. On 22 January 2009, the firm informed Mr Goh that if he failed to pay its outstanding bills, it would have no choice but to discharge itself from further conduct of the matter. In the same letter, it also asked Mr Goh for further funds if he wanted to retain the firm as his solicitors for the conduct of OS 1627.

On 4 March 2009, Mr Goh filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person in OS 1627. He duly represented himself at the hearing of OS 1627 before Andrew Ang J between July and October 2009. On 27 October 2009, Andrew Ang J provided his written grounds dismissing Mr Goh’s appeal. The reasons for his decision are set out in Goh Teh Lee HC. Mr Goh was not happy with this outcome and filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Again, he acted in person. The Court of Appeal’s written grounds for dismissing his appeal were released on 26 April 2010. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reported at Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and others [2010] 3 SLR 364 (“Goh Teh Lee CA”).

These proceedings

This action was commenced by the firm on 22 May 2009 in the Subordinate Courts as MC Suit 15426/2009. Mr Goh filed his defence and counterclaim on 3 August 2009. In August 2010, pursuant to an application made by Mr Goh, the action was transferred to this court. Subsequently, Mr Goh made an application to join Ms Tan as the second defendant to his counterclaim. This application was allowed and from 29 November 2010, Mr Goh’s counterclaim has been against the firm as the first defendant and against Ms Tan as the second defendant. The reliefs sought are, however, the same.

The statement of claim filed by the firm is short and straightforward. The amount claimed is $27,203.66 as being the outstanding total sum payable by Mr Goh for professional services rendered to him and expenses incurred by the law firm as Mr Goh’s solicitors for and on his behalf and/or at his request including services rendered by Merill Legal Solutions for the audio transcription of the hearing before the Board.

By his Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) filed on 2 June 2010, Mr Goh denied he was liable to pay the sums claimed. He asserted the following: He had not engaged the firm to act for him in STB 33 or in OS 1627. The firm had voluntarily acted for him on the mutual understanding that they would win STB 33 and 70% of their professional fees would be paid from the costs which would be awarded to him. The firm had not quoted its professional fees to Mr Goh for representing him in relation to STB 33 prior to filing his objection to the collective sale. The firm had not quoted its professional fees to Mr Goh for representing him in the High Court prior to filing OS 1627.

As an alternative to his assertions that the firm had acted without instructions, Mr Goh averred that the firm was negligent in discharging its duties to him and/or had failed to properly advise him. The following particulars of negligence/failure to provide proper advice were given: The firm had never pointed out to Mr Goh and had not advised him that he had no right or locus standi to file objections to the collective sale. The firm should have advised him that as a joint tenant of his property, Mr Goh could only raise and file objections with the participation of the other joint tenant. The other joint tenant was his estranged wife who had already signed the collective sale agreement therefore making any objection impossible. In the event, the Court of Appeal ruled as a preliminary point that Mr Goh had no right or locus to file any objection because all the joint tenants of a property had to act together to object to the en bloc sale. The fact that joint tenants had to act together in a cause of action concerning the property of which they were joint tenants was an established principle of law. Mr Goh had raised and filed the Objections and proceeded all the way to the Court of Appeal because Ms Tan had advised him that he had a good case. However, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal subsequently said that Mr Goh’s case had no merits.

Mr Goh gave the following particulars of loss and damage that he had sustained by reason of the firm’s negligence/failure to give proper advice: If he had been properly advised that he had no locus to object to the collective sale and/or that his case was weak, Mr Goh would have been able to make a properly informed decision whether to proceed before the Board, the High Court and the Court...