Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] Mr Kuntjoro Wibawa engaged the services of TCMGP in July 2011 to act for him in a matter concerning his father’s estate and discretionary trusts in Jersey. Mr Ling Leong Hui was the solicitor in TCMGP who advised Mr Wibawa. Mr Ling felt that he was not sufficiently familiar with the law on trusts and so instructed Mr Bachoo Mohan Singh as counsel. In August 2011, Mr Wibawa signed a warrant to act, which authorised TCMGP to act on his behalf. The warrant to act also sets out TCMGP and Mr Singh’s charging rates. TCMGP commenced Suit 650 of 2011 (“Suit 650”) on behalf of Mr Wibawa in respect of his claim on 21 September 2011. That suit is not before me and is not relevant for the purposes of the proceedings before me.

[2] For the next two years after August 2011, Mr Singh and TCMGP acted on behalf of Mr Wibawa in Suit 650 and related matters, which included interlocutory applications arising from Suit 650, and applications for advancement of trust monies in the Royal Court of Jersey. But the parties eventually decided to terminate their solicitor-client relationship. Mr Wibawa discharged TCMGP and Mr Singh on 3 June 2013. Suit 650 was still in the interlocutory stage at that time and general discovery had just been completed. The parties had just filed their lists of documents.

[5] On 6 March 2014, with the taxation proceedings in BC 173/2013 still ongoing, Mr Wibawa filed Originating Summons No 204 of 2014 (“OS 204”) for a declaration that the warrant to act was void and that he had already paid Mr Singh all his legal fees which were incurred in accordance with the oral agreement they had. Concurrently, Mr Wibawa filed an application for a stay of BC 173/2013 in Summons No 1207 of 2014. The learned assistant registrar (“the AR”) was of the view that the proceedings in OS 204 had a direct bearing on BC 173/2013 and thus allowed the stay application. TCMGP appealed against this decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 94 of 2014 (“RA 94”), which was fixed before me. I allowed the appeal and ordered that the proceedings in BC 173/2013 should resume: see Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa @ Wong Kin Tjong [2014] SGHC 79.

[6] The AR continued hearing BC 173/2013 and gave her decision on 24 June 2014. TCMGP and Mr Wibawa were both dissatisfied with the taxation order. They filed Summons No 3317 of 2014 (“SUM 3317”) and Summons No 3318 of 2014 (“SUM 3318”) respectively to apply for a review of the order. As OS 204 involved the same parties and had overlapping issues with BC 173/2013, all three matters were eventually fixed together before me. The three matters are:

(a) SUM 3317, in which TCMGP seeks a review of the AR’s taxation order in BC 173/2013 on the grounds that the costs awarded are too low.

(b) SUM 3318, in which Mr Wibawa similarly seeks a review of the AR’s taxation order in BC 173/2013 but on the grounds that the costs are too high;

(c) OS 204, in which Mr Wibawa prays for a declaration that the warrant to act is null and void, and for a declaration that all costs due and payable to TCMGP and Mr Singh, have been paid.

[8] Although OS 204 is an originating summons and not a writ, Lee Seiu Kin J ordered on 30 June 2014 that cross-examination be carried out. This was necessary because the case involved many factual disputes, as I had already pointed out in my earlier judgment in RA 94. The cross-examination was carried out before me.

[11] Mr Wibawa’s case in OS 204 is also contradicted by the affidavits that he had deposed in the proceedings in the Jersey courts for the advancement of $500,000 to pay his legal fees in early 2012. In those affidavits, he deposed that he owed his lawyers large sums of monies, which were charged by hourly rates.

[12] The records of the payment of the legal fees also do not follow the terms of the oral agreement. From August to December 2011, Mr Wibawa paid TCMGP a total sum of $55,000, which does not tally with the agreement under which only $25,000 would have been due. On March 2012, he paid a sum of $75,000 to TCMGP on top of the monthly sum of $10,000. Thus, even the records of payment do not support Mr Wibawa’s case.

[13] The transcripts of audio recording that Mr Wibawa use to support his case is also of little assistance to him. Those transcripts are incomplete and have only been selectively transcribed with many portions of the conversations cut off. They were also not done properly, with many amendments at the side in some sections.

[14] I am not satisfied that there was such an oral agreement. It is unlikely for there to be an oral agreement that covers only the monthly sum due to Mr Singh with no mention of that due to TCMGP. It may be the case that Mr Wibawa had an agreement with Mr Singh or Mr Ling that he could pay $5,000, which was later increased to $10,000, every month for the time being as he was financially constrained. But this does not mean that the terms of the warrant to act are void in that he still has to eventually pay those legal fees though some flexibility is accorded to him. I thus dismiss Mr Wibawa’s application in OS 204.

[16] TCMGP’s bill is mainly for proceedings in Suit 650. When TCMGP was discharged in June 2013, general discovery had just been completed. Prior to that, TCMGP and Mr Singh acted on behalf of Mr Wibawa in 14 interlocutory applications. These include applications for a Mareva injunction, an anti-suit injunction, leave for service out of jurisdiction, advancement of funds from the trust, as well as several summons to defend the defendants’ applications to strike out Mr Wibawa’s claim, one of which was followed by a registrar’s appeal against the assistant registrar’s decision to strike out his claim against the ninth defendant, and a few applications for further and better particulars of the defendants’ defence. There were also two mediation sessions at the Singapore Mediation Centre on 19 July and 27 August 2012, which was attended by Mr Singh, Mr Ling and Mr Tommy Choo.

[17] Additionally, there were four applications filed in the Royal Court of Jersey, which include an application for stay of proceedings and an application for an advancement of $500,000 from the trust towards payment of Mr Wibawa’s legal fees. Mr Singh spent about seven days in January 2012 in Jersey to assist Mr Wibawa in the applications. It also appears that Mr Singh did some investigative work and provided advice to Mr Wibawa on his interest in accounts and assets in Hong Kong. Mr Wibawa disputes this and alleges that he did not give any instructions to TCMGP or Mr Singh to carry out any such work in relation to the accounts and assets in Hong Kong.

[18] In total, TCMGP and Mr Singh acted on behalf of Mr Wibawa for a period of 22 months, from late July 2011 to end May 2013. As with the majority of cases, there were lull periods interspersed throughout the 22 months when the matter was relatively inactive. It is undisputed that Mr Singh did the bulk of the work whilst Mr Ling was hardly involved in the substantive part of the matter due to his unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the dispute. Mr Ling played a largely clerical role and even then, the bulk of his work was done by his clerk, Mr Jeffrey Lim.

(a) For section 1, for work done other than for taxation by TCMGP from 30 July 2011 to 28 May 2013, the costs were taxed at $127,500. She arrived at this sum by applying the rate of $450 per hour for Mr Ling, and multiplying that by 250 hours, before adding $15,000 which was the agreed fees for the mediation sessions.

(b) For section 2, for work done for taxation, the costs were taxed at $3,000. Having regard to the history of the matter and the numerous adjournments for the matter for which costs were reserved, she decided not to exercise her power under O 59 r 8(7) of the Rules of Court to disallow the costs in this section even though more than one-half of the total amount of the bill had been taxed off.

(c) For section 3, a sum of $486,000 was allowed out of TCMGP’s claim for $944,310.80. The AR allowed $480,000 for work done by Mr Singh in court, in the mediation session, in preparation for the case as well as overseas. The figure $480,000 was arrived at by applying the rate of $800 per hour for Mr Singh, and multiplying that by 600 hours. As agreed by the parties, the AR fixed the other disbursements at $6,000.

[26] Mr Wibawa has also alleged that Mr Singh and TCMGP committed numerous breaches of professional conduct rules. I have not dealt with these allegations in these proceedings as this is not the appropriate forum and the issues, which may carry serious consequences, have not been properly ventilated. Mr Wibawa may wish to lodge these complaints with the Law Society of Singapore for the complaints to be properly dealt with.

(a) Section 1: $50,000;

(b) Section 2: $3,000; and

(c) Section 3: $206,000.

(a) Section 1: $30,000;

(b) Section 2: $1,400; and

(c) Section 3: $2,069.80 as agreed.

[34] OS 204 is not a complex claim. It is a very straightforward matter that has been unnecessarily complicated by all the parties involved. There is only a simple issue: was there an oral agreement that superseded the terms of the warrant to act? The bulk of the material in OS 204 that was presented by the parties is peripheral and irrelevant.

(a) Section 1: $5,000;

(b) Section 2: $1,400;

(c) Section 3: $2,069.80 as agreed.