Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Quentin Loh J |
Judgment Date | 14 February 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 17 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 1084 of 2009 (Summons No 5469 of 2011/F) |
Year | 2012 |
Published date | 21 February 2012 |
Hearing Date | 27 January 2012,10 January 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, SC, (Rodyk & Davidson), as counsel, instructed by Edde Ng, Cheryl Koh and Ho Xin Ling (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) |
Defendant Counsel | N Sreenivasan and Shankar A S (Straits Law),Subramanian Pillai, Luo Ling Ling and Edwin Chia (Colin Ng & Partners) |
Subject Matter | Legal Profession,Professional Conduct,Breach,Civil Procedure,Injunctions,Civil Procedue,Jurisdiction,Inherent,Equity,Remedies,Equitable Compensation |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 17 |
The 2
These proceedings, (the main action, Suit No 1084 of 2009, consolidated with Suit No 1085 of 2009/M and Suit No 1086 of 2009/R (“S 1084/2009”)), flow from the protracted Horizon Towers litigation which culminated in the Court of Appeal judgment setting aside the order of the Horizon Board for the collective sale of the property (“Horizon Towers litigation”) on 2 April 2009: see
In the Horizon Towers litigation, the plaintiffs were part of a group of subsidiary proprietors who opposed the collective sale. They were unsuccessful before the Strata Titles Board (“STB”) and the High Court, but as noted, succeeded before the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs were represented by TKQP before the STB, the High Court in relation to orders made by the STB and in the judicial review application in the High Court before Choo Han Teck J (“STB matters”). TKQP did not represent the plaintiffs in the Court of Appeal.
The 1
In S 1084/2009, the plaintiffs found their claim on the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duties which the Court of Appeal found to be owed by the defendants to the plaintiffs, due to a possible conflict of interest which the defendants should have disclosed to the subsidiary proprietors:
Mr Tan’s answer to the plaintiff’s claim in so far as it is relevant to this application is as follows:5
Because Mr Tan challenges the quantum of loss and damage suffered by the plaintiffs, and therefore the
Urgency
Conflict of interest 25. During the course of a retainer, an advocate and solicitor shall advance the client’s interest unaffected by:
(a) any interest of the advocate and solicitor;
(aa) where the advocate and solicitor is a partner or an employee of a limited liability law partnership any interest of the limited liability law partnership;
(b) any interest of any other person; or
(c) the advocate and solicitor’s perception of the public interest except where accepting the instructions may make it difficult for him to maintain his professional independence or would make it incompatible with the best interests of the administration of justice.
Solicitor not to act if he is a witness 64 (1) An advocate and solicitor shall not accept instructions in a case in which the advocate and solicitor has reason to believe that he is likely to be a witness on a material question of fact.
(2) An advocate and solicitor shall discharge himself from representing a client if it becomes apparent to the advocate and solicitor that he is likely to be a witness on a material question of fact.
(3) In discharging himself, the advocate and solicitor shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that his client’s interest is not in any way jeopardised.
The matter has assumed some urgency because the consolidated action is fixed for hearing from 6 to 17 February 2012. This application was filed just before the court vacation on 30 November 2011, fixed for hearing on 21 December 2011 but adjourned as counsel was not available due to the holiday season and came before me on 10 January 2012. In view of the urgency, I gave my decision with brief grounds on 27 January 2012 and told the parties that my written grounds will follow.
It appears that Mr Tan, inadvertently or otherwise, has contributed to the protraction of the main action by multiple changes of solicitors. Initially Mr Tan was represented by TSMP Law Corporation and then by Mr Glenn Knight on or around 29 July 2011, after which Mr Tan was a litigant in person. On 8 Nov 2011, Collin Ng Partners (“CNP”) were instructed and currently represent Mr Tan.6 Mr Samtani has maintained the same representation throughout these proceedings.
Mr Tan introduced the defence relating to the propriety of TKQP’s invoices rather belatedly on 18 November 2011 by way of amendment to paragraphs 30-31 of his defence (above at
On the other hand, the plaintiffs have taken out an application for preliminary determination, in which they seek to establish that:
This application and the submissions have raised the following issues:
The inherent jurisdiction of the court is very widely expressed in O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules”). It is exercisable to prevent “injustice” or an “abuse of process”:
It has long been...For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in these Rules shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the Court to make any order as may be necessary to
prevent injustice or to prevent an abuse of process of the Court. [emphasis added]
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Then Khek Khoon v Arjun Permanand Samtani
...Khek Khoon and another Plaintiff and Arjun Permanand Samtani and another Defendant [2012] SGHC 17 Quentin Loh J Suit No 1084 of 2009 (Summons No 5469 of 2011) High Court Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction—Inherent—Second defendant sought to persuade court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to ......
-
TWM v TWN
...counsel for the Plaintiff referred to the High Court’s decision in Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another [2012] SGHC 17 (“Then Khek Khoon”). In Then Khek Khoon, the High Court had to deal with the issue whether it had inherent jurisdiction to hear an application ......