Wan Hoe Keet and another v LVM Law Chambers LLC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 23 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 103
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wong Soon Peng Adrian, Ng Tee Tze, Allen and Ang Leong Hao (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Date: 23 April 2019
• Docket Number: HC/Originating Summons No 13 of 2019
• Hearing Date: 03 April 2019
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Injunctions
• Year: 2019
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 103
• Defendant Counsel: Lok Vi Ming SC, Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Tang Jin Sheng and Tan Qin Lei (LVM Law Chambers LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 15 April 2020

Choo Han Teck J:

In Suit No 315 of 2016 (“Suit 315”), the plaintiff, Lee Hwee Yeow (“LHY”) sued Wan Hoe Keet (“Wan”) and Ho Sally (“Ho”) for losses from multilevel marketing ventures. LHY was represented by Mr Lok Vi Ming SC of LVM Law Chambers LLC (“LVM”). Wan and Ho are the applicants (“the Applicants”) in the present application before me. In Suit 315, LHY claimed that the applicants misrepresented an investment product under a scheme known as “SureWin4U” when it was in fact a pyramid scheme which sold a bogus product. The Applicants settled Suit 315 with LHY through negotiations on 20 October 2017 (“the LHY Settlement”).

In the present action in Suit No 806 of 2018 (“Suit 806”), the plaintiff is one Chan Pik Sun (“CPS”). The Applicants are the defendants in Suit 806. CPS is also represented by LVM. The Applicants applied by this originating summons to enjoin LVM from acting for CPS, the plaintiff in Suit 806. Mr Adrian Wong appeared on behalf of the Applicants, and Mr Lok SC, appeared on behalf of LVM.

The Applicants are aggrieved that LVM is acting for CPS when it has confidential information obtained from the settlement of Suit 315. Suit 315 and Suit 806 are similar in that Wan and Ho are the defendants in both actions. They were sued (by different plaintiffs) for misrepresenting a multilevel marketing scheme that ensnared the respective plaintiffs to participate as investors. The plaintiffs in both suits refer to the scheme as a “Ponzi” scheme. The only relevant fact for present purposes is that CPS also alleged that Wan and Ho were the masterminds behind the scheme named “SureWin4U”.

The merits of the claims in Suit 806 are not relevant and are for the trial judge to determine. The only questions before me are, first, is there a conflict of interests on the part of LVM in acting for the plaintiffs in both suits, and secondly, if so, have the Applicants shown that there is a threat of misuse sufficient to justify an injunction order against LVM from acting for CPS?

Mr Wong relies on the decisions in Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 354 (“Worth”) and Carter Holt Harvey Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd [2001] 3 NZLR 343 (“Carter”). Worth’s case is very much similar in fact to the Applicants’ case here. Mr Lok SC referred me to four other cases in which in similar applications, the applications for an injunction against the solicitors were dismissed.

Worth was a case in which a company, “Veolia”, sued another company “WSN”, but the dispute was settled after mediation where Mr Maxwell and Mr Webb, acted for Veolia as its solicitors. “Worth”, represented by the same Mr Maxwell and Mr Webb, then sued WSN in a similar action and WSN applied to the court to enjoin Mr Maxwell and Mr Webb from acting for Worth. All three companies, Veolia, WSN and Worth were in the business of waste recycling, and were thus competitors to each other. The settlement agreement between Veolia and WSN provided a confidentiality clause in which the parties pledged not to disclose the terms of the settlement. There was also a mediation agreement and a Deed of Release, both of which contained a similar...