Riaz LLC v Sharil bin Abbas (through his deputy and litigation representative, Salbeah bte Paye)

Choo Han Teck J:

[2] The respondent, Mr Sharil bin Abbas (“Sharil”), was involved in a road traffic accident on Pasir Panjang Road on 11 December 2007. He suffered brain damage as a result. While in hospital, he was approached by the applicant, who offered to act for him. The respondent and his mother, Salbeah bte Paye (“Salbeah”), saw the applicant solicitor, Mr Riaz Qayyum (“Mr Riaz”) at his office twice after Sharil was discharged from the hospital. A warrant to act was executed (“the Warrant to Act”) with Sharil’s thumb print and Salbeah’s signature. At that time, Salbeah was not appointed as Sharil’s litigation representative under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, Rev Ed 2010) (“the Mental Capacity Act”).

[3] Mr Riaz filed S 539 on 22 June 2009. Salbeah filed an affidavit on 21 December 2012 stating that the matter did not progress under Mr Riaz. Salbeah then approached Shergill in June 2010 on Sharil’s behalf. Shergill advised Salbeah that S 539 had been wrongly filed as Sharil lacked the mental capacity to have a suit started in his name. Salbeah engaged Shergill on 28 June 2010 and was appointed Sharil’s litigation representative pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act on 11 November 2010. The writ in S 539 was amended to reflect this.

[8] Salbeah was not an agent of Sharil in order to have given consent on his behalf. Salbeah was only appointed Sharil’s litigation representative on 11 November 2010, after the Applicant had been removed as the solicitors on file for the conduct of S 539. Although Salbeah’s signature was on the Warrant to Act, it is Sharil’s thumbprint that appears above the signature line and it is Sharil’s name that is stated as the contracting party. It is the Applicant’s own case that Mr Riaz took instructions from Sharil and not from Salbeah. This was confirmed by Salbeah in her own affidavit where she claimed to have given Mr Riaz no instructions except to tell him of her concern that Sharil was not of sound mind. The Warrant to Act was ostensibly endorsed by Sharil. On the Applicant’s own version of the facts, it could not have derived authority to commence S 539 from Salbeah as a duly authorised agent of Sharil.