High Court · Decided 14 November 2013
[2013] SGHC 247 · Case no. Bill of Costs Nos 178 and 179 of 2010 (Summons Nos 5901 of 2012 and 5902 of 2012), Originating Summons No 275 of 2010 · 3 paragraphs
✱ What happened, in plain English
There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.
Ask about this judgment →Official text from eLitigation
Lee Seiu Kin J:
[3] On 14 November 2012, the defendants applied for review of the two bills. Summons no 5901 of 2012 was for review of BC178 and summons no 5902 of 2012 was for review of BC179. The hearing for these two summonses was on 30 September 2013, at the end of which I dismissed the defendants’ applications. They have since appealed and I now give the grounds for my decision.
[4] Before me, Mr Chiam tendered a written submission which described the manner in which various solicitors from the plaintiff had acted in relation to the originating summons and the appeals. It primarily concerned allegations that the plaintiff had acted contrary to Mr Chiam’s instructions and that the plaintiff had been negligent in their advice and the manner in which they had conducted the litigation. I observed that these pertain to Mr Chiam’s allegations against the plaintiff which were the subject of his complaints to the Law Society. I had summarised this in [2] to [3] of my written judgment in originating summons no 386 of 2012 as follows:
[6] For the reasons given above, I upheld the decisions in both summonses.