The Law Society of Singapore v Chan Chow Wang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 22 November 1974
• Neutral Citation: [1974] SGHC 16
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 253 of 1974
• Date: 22 November 1974
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1974
• Plaintiff Counsel: SK Lee (SK Lee & Co)
• Citation: [1974] SGHC 16
• Defendant Counsel: John Newey QC and Leong Wai Yin (Leong & Gay)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Solicitor entered into champertous agreement,Legal Profession,Solicitor engaged in fraudulent conduct in discharge of professional duty,Whether due cause shown for disciplinary action against solicitor,Professional conduct,Sections 84(1), (2), 107(1)(b) and (3) Legal Profession Act (Cap 217)

In September 1971 a 20-year-old labourer, Ng Sa Chia, injured his hand while at work in the premises of his employers, Bridgestone Singapore Ltd. Six months later in March 1972 he consulted Mr Chan Chow Wang (hereinafter referred to as Mr Chan), an advocate and solicitor practising under the firm name of Chan Chow Wang & Co. The evidence on this visit is conflicting. Ng Sa Chia said he went to Mr Chan`s office with a fellow employee, Osman, and two others on 4 March and saw a clerk who took down his identity card particulars. He told the clerk about the injury to his hand. Then they returned to his home where the clerk saw his mother, Mdm Seah Huay, took down her identity card particulars, obtained her fingerprint on a piece of paper and was given his doctor`s report cards. He said he did not see Mr Chan at that visit.

Mr Chan, however, said Ng Sa Chia consulted him on 3 March having come into his inner office with Osman and his clerk who showed him an `Instruction Sheet` attached to which were two hospital registration cards. This `Instruction Sheet` was a plain foolscap piece of paper on which the clerk had written the personal particulars of Ng Sa Chia and particulars with a diagram relating to the injury suffered by Ng Sa Chia. This document is undated.

According to Mdm Seah Huay she was given a note to see a lawyer by one of the persons who came to her house on 4 March and in response to it she went to see the lawyer named in the note on 6 March and the lawyer she saw was Mr Chan at his inner office. She went with another son, Ng Kim Pan. She asked Mr Chan how he would compute his fees and was told by Mr Chan that `if we won against the insurance company he would take 10%`. As she did not understand what that meant he explained to her that `if we won the case and if the insurance company paid $100 he would tax me $10` to which she agreed. She said she did not pay any money to Mr Chan nor did he ask her to pay any money. She left after he had told her to go to his office if she received a letter from him.

Mr Chan gave a totally different version. He said that Mdm Seah Huay saw him in the inner office on 4 March accompanied by her son, Ng Kim Pan. They came into his room with his clerk who brought two documents which he referred to as `Instruction Sheets`. One of these documents was the `Instruction Sheet` already referred to and the other, also a plain foolscap sheet of paper, had written on it by the clerk the personal particulars of Mdm Seah Huay and Ng Sa Chia. After satisfying himself that Mdm Seah Huay was the mother of Ng Sa Chia, he ascertained from her that she wanted to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by her son. He was asked by her what his legal costs would be. He explained to her in the Hokkien dialect that he was unable at that stage to tell her because he did not know the full extent of her son`s injuries and the amount of work he would have to do. He told her that if the claim was settled or if judgment was entered in her favour, `the defendants would pay me part of the costs which is party and party costs and that she would have to pay one part of the costs which is solicitor and client costs over and above party and party costs`. He also told her he would tell her what his costs would be at the completion of the case and if she disagreed with his costs she could have the bill taxed by the Registrar and that from his experience of taxation the Registrar would allow solicitor and client costs at about 10% of the sum awarded in negligence cases. He said that he explained to her the difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs by telling her that there are two sets of costs; one set would be payable by the defendants and the other set she would have to pay him. While he was telling her about the probable costs she asked him what 10% meant and he explained it meant $10 in every $100.

About three months later in June 1972 Mdm Seah Huay received a single sentence letter from Mr Chan`s firm which reads: `Please kindly call at our office as soon as possible and bring along with you this letter.` Prior to writing this letter, Mr Chan had on 26 May written to the injured`s employers, Bridgestone Singapore Ltd claiming damages and enquiring whether the company was prepared to negotiate, without prejudice, an out of court settlement. The company`s insurers replied by letter dated 5 June stating that the circumstances of the accident suggested that the employee was fully responsible for his own injuries. Madam Seah Huay responded to Mr Chan`s letter. The evidence on this visit is again in acute conflict. She said she went alone and saw Mr Chan who told her that if the insurance company compensated her too little such as $2,000 to $3,000 she was not to accept it and to show the letter to him. She accepted his advice and then left.

Mr Chan`s version was completely different. He said she and her injured son came and saw him on 13 June in his inner office with his clerk who brought in the relevant office file and another `Instruction Sheet`. This document had a date `13 June 1972` written on it by the clerk and an account of how Ng Sa Chia came to suffer the injury to his hand. Mr Chan said he told Mdm Seah Huay that the insurance company had written denying liability and in the circumstances he had to commence proceedings in the High Court. He also told her that as her son was under 21 years of age she would have to sign a consent to act as next friend. Three copies of a consent to act were then prepared and in his presence she affixed her thumb print on them.

About three months later Mr Chan`s firm commenced proceedings in the High Court. The writ was issued on 5 September 1971 naming Bridgestone Singapore Ltd as defendants. On 21 September Mr Chan`s firm received a letter from a firm of solicitors who had entered appearance on behalf of the company. The next day at the request of the solicitor in charge of the matter for the company Mr Chan met him and after discussion an offer of settlement of $3,500 damages and costs of $1,000 was made on behalf of the company. Mr Chan made a counter offer of $4,500 and $1,500 costs. On the same day Mr Chan wrote to Mdm Seah Huay, again a single sentence letter, requesting her and her injured son to call at his office and to bring the letter with her.

A few days later Mdm Seah Huay and her injured son went to Mr Chan`s office. Her evidence on this, her third visit to Mr Chan`s office, again conflicts with Mr Chan`s version. She said that he told her that there was an offer of $3,000 which she rejected and he then told her he would try to get between $4,000 and $4,500. She agreed to his negotiating on that basis and she then left. She denied he reminded her of costs to be paid by her.

Mr Chan`s version was this. She and her injured son came into his inner office with his clerk. He told her he had commenced proceedings in the High Court and had seen the defendants` lawyer who offered $3,500 and $1,000 costs. He told her $3,500 was on the low side and advised her to reject the offer. She accepted his advice. He then told her he would try and obtain a settlement at between $4,000 and $4,500 and that out of the settlement she would have to pay him his costs in addition to the party and party costs. He then examined the son`s scars, made a note of the injuries on this letter which Mdm Seah Huay had brought with her and questioned her son on certain aspects relating to the claim for damages. They then left.

Mr Chan resumed negotiations with the insurance company`s solicitors who wrote to his firm on 3 October 1972 enquiring whether his client would settle `at a global figure of $5,000`. Without replying and without disclosing this latest offer to Mdm Seah Huay, Mr Chan took out an application by way of summons in chambers on 5 October returnable on 13 October `for an order that the plaintiff may be at liberty to sign judgment for consent in this action`. There was no affidavit filed in support of the application. The insurance company`s solicitors, on being served with the application, wrote to Mr Chan`s firm expressing surprise as they had never agreed to consent to judgment. Mr Chan replied on 11 October stating that his client was prepared to accept the global offer of $5,000 on condition that their clients were `prepared to consent judgment in the form of general damages at $4,000 and costs at $1,000`. In fact Mr Chan had not informed Mdm Seah Huay nor had she expressly instructed him on the global offer of $5,000. The application was heard by the deputy registrar on 13 October and by consent it was ordered that the `plaintiff be at liberty to sign judgment against the abovenamed defendants for the sum of $4,000 and $1,000 party and party costs in the action`.

Subsequently Mr Chan`s firm received a letter dated 23 October 1972 from the insurance company`s solicitors enclosing a cheque for $5,000 and a discharge voucher for his client`s signature and return. On 27 October Mr Chan wrote to Mdm Seah Huay another single sentence letter requesting her to call at his office. In response she went to Mr Chan`s office with her injured son on 31 October 1972 and saw Mr Chan. The evidence of what took place is again in acute conflict. Madam Seah Huay said that Mr Chan gave her a piece of paper and asked her to put her thumb print on it. After she had done this she was asked to wait outside his room. She was not told nor did she know of the contents of the document she thumb printed. Then she saw his clerk enter his room, come out and then leave the office. On the clerk`s return to the office, he went into Mr Chan`s room and then came out and asked her and her injured son to go into Mr Chan`s room. Inside the room Mr Chan put $3,000 on the table and asked her to count it and to take it. She counted it and found it was $3,000 in $50 denominations and asked him why he had not asked for $4,500 as promised. He replied that that was the...