Wee Lee Harry v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 01 August 1980
• Neutral Citation: [1980] SGCA 8
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 47 of 1979
• Date: 01 August 1980
• Year: 1980
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: YR Jumabhoy (Braddell Brothers)
• Citation: [1980] SGCA 8
• Defendant Counsel: LP Thean (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Lump sum bill not itemised,Legal Profession Act (Cap 217),Appeal against order,Taxation,Legal Profession,Inherent jurisdiction of court,Bill of costs,Order for taxation

The plaintiff company retained the defendant and his firm of solicitors of Messrs Braddell Brothers, to act as solicitor for the plaintiff and its subsidiaries on various matters from early November 1975 to 31 August 1976 when the defendant`s services were terminated.

The defendant was to be paid a retaining fee of $1,500 per month from January to September 1976; this payment was however in addition to the fees payable to the defendant for work done by him for the plaintiff and/or its subsidiaries.

In August and September 1976 the defendant delivered to the plaintiff two lump sum bills of costs, brief particulars of which are as follows:

Date Bill No Matter Amount

30 August 1976 152/76 Loan of US$7.5m $18,223.50

3 September 1976 172/76 DBS Debenture $11,651.78

$29,875.28

On 30 March 1977 the defendant delivered to the plaintiff further 24 lump sum bills of costs, all bearing the same date, for a total sum of $447,761 in respect of other work done, brief particulars of which are as follows:

Bill No Matter Amount

67/77 Haw Par/Slater Walker dispute $501,011

Less paid 119,500

381,511

68/77 Notarial services 250

69/77 Pharmaceutical div 1,400

70/77 Investigation of air tickets 750

71/77 Claim of Kuwait 200

72/77 Harry Crabb`s letter of appointment 50

73/77 Appointment of Mr Fam as Director of HPIF NV 150

74/77 Perusing and advising on resolution granting Mr Fam

power of attorney 200

75/77 Advising on contract of service of managing director

and Central Provident Fund related thereto 600

76/77 Mr Magnus 2,000

77/77 Perusing and advising on resolution of HPHK 200

78/77 Notices on meeting and proxy forms 150

79/77 Law note on resolution of HPBIL to borrow US$7 m

loan and disclosures of directors` interest 400

80/77 Advice on ratifying resolution re amendment of

nominal value of Convertible Preference Shares 400

81/77 Advice on annual report 450

82/77 Advice on directors` remuneration disclosed in

directors` report 150

83/77 Charter Consolidated (M) Sdn Bhd and Central

Mining Finance 150

84/77 Second supplemental deed between Athea & Central

Mining Finance 750

85/77 M & G general bill 5,000

86/77 M & G gearing & staffing requirements 500

87/77 Lockhart Road building 2,500

88/77 Financing 7,500

89/77 London Tin & Reconstruction of Haw Par London Ltd 35,000

90/77 Miscellaneous matters 7,500

Total amount $447,761

The plaintiff had during the period November 1975 to August 1976 paid the defendant sums totalling $119,500 for which sum the defendant gave the plaintiff credit in the aforesaid bill No 67/77. As a matter of arithmetic the 27 bills submitted to the plaintiff totalled in all to a sum of a little over $610,000 exclusive of disbursements. Apart from the payment of the said $119,500 the plaintiff made no further payments on the said bills as it was of the view that the amounts charged were grossly excessive.

Negotiations then ensued between the plaintiff and the defendant with a view to reaching agreement on the balance of profit costs claimed by the defendant. But unfortunately no such agreement was reached. The defendant thereupon started proceedings against the plaintiff in Suit No 3731 of 1978 wherein he claimed payment of the sum of $477,636.28.

The plaintiff, for its part, then took out an originating summons against the defendant proving for:

(a) An order that the defendant do within 30 days after service of this order deliver to the plaintiff bills of costs in all matters of business specified or referred to in the second column of the schedule hereto attached and that such bills as and when delivered be referred to the registrar to be taxed and settled and that the defendant do give credit for all sums of money received by him from or on account of the plaintiff and refund what (if anything) he may on such taxation appear to have been overpaid.

(b) In the alterative, an order that the bills of costs delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant, particulars whereof are set out in the said schedule hereto attached, be referred to the registrar to be taxed and that the defendant do give credit for all sums of money received by him from or on account of the plaintiff and refund what (if anything) he may on such taxation appear to have been overpaid.

(c) An order that the registrar do tax the costs of the...