SINGAPORE: A taxi driver involved in a 2008 traffic accident with a lorry tried to sue the lorry driver for severe injuries suffered, but failed because his lawyer did not meet a deadline.
He then hired another law firm to sue the first lawyer for negligence, but the new lawyers either failed to show up for multiple pre-trial conferences or showed up without a valid practising certificate.
As a result, his second suit for negligence was struck out.
The cabby appealed to the High Court to have the striking out reversed, and Justice Tan Siong Thye allowed the appeal, in a judgment released on Monday (Mar 6).
THE ACCIDENT
The plaintiff, Mr Cheng Hoe Soon, was driving a Premier Taxi along Beach Road towards Rochor Road in January 2008 when he got into a traffic accident with a lorry.
As a result of the accident, Mr Cheng sustained severe injuries. He alleged that the lorry driver, Mr Chua Yeo Meng, had caused the traffic accident, so he hired lawyers to sue Mr Chua for damages.
Mr Cheng eventually engaged Mr Ezekiel Peter Latimer, who was required to set down the matter for trial by end-March 2015.
Failure to do so would result in Mr Cheng’s claim being struck off. Mr Latimer failed to set down the matter for trial, and Mr Cheng’s claim was struck off.
CABBY HIRES FRESH LAWYERS TO SUE FORMER LAWYER
Mr Cheng then hired another set of lawyers from S K Kumar Law Practice (SKK) to initiate a suit against Mr Latimer.
He alleged that Mr Latimer had acted negligently in handling his case, resulting in his claim being struck off.
However, in the course of this fresh suit between April 2022 and August 2022, lawyers from SKK repeatedly failed to attend pre-trial conferences for Mr Cheng.
In some instances, Charles Yeo appeared on Mr Cheng’s behalf, but he did not have a valid practising certificate at the time.
According to the judgment, Yeo attended pre-trial conferences for Mr Cheng twice in April 2022, but they were adjourned as he did not have a valid practising certificate.
NO LAWYERS APPEAR
At the third pre-trial conference in May, no lawyer from SKK appeared on Mr Cheng’s behalf.
The assistant registrar adjourned the case and directed the law firm to explain its absence, saying that he may consider striking out Mr Cheng’s claim if there was further non-attendance.
The law firm replied to say that its solicitor, Mr Foo Ho Chew, was late for the pre-trial conference as he was occupied with other matters in the Family Justice Court.
The firm also said Yeo was waiting for a conditional practising certificate to be issued and said it would ensure attendance at all future court dates.
At the next pre-trial conference on May 23, 2022, no lawyer from SKK appeared on Mr Cheng’s behalf and it was again adjourned.
On Jun 14, 2022, Yeo appeared in a pre-trial conference on Mr Cheng’s behalf. He had a valid practising cert this time, and Mr Cheng was ordered to pay costs of S$3,000 to the defendant because of the wasted costs arising from the four adjournments.
The case was fixed for a further pre-trial conference, but no lawyers from SKK appeared in the subsequent two sessions.
On Sep 27, 2022, Mr Foo, who was practising under H C Law Practice at the time, appeared for Mr Cheng at the pre-trial conference. He said he had been instructed by SKK to take directions.
Mr Foo was not a lawyer on record for Mr Cheng at the time. The assistant registrar found that Mr Foo was not aware of the stage of case management for the suit and struck out Mr Cheng’s statement of claim, on the basis that no counsel on record was present.
Mr Cheng was ordered to pay costs to the defendant.
SKK later asked for a further review of this striking out, but the request was refused.
The law firm filed a summons on Mr Cheng’s behalf in October 2022 asking for the striking out order to be set aside and for Mr Cheng’s statement of claim to be reinstated.
A different assistant registrar heard the case but dismissed it. Mr Cheng then filed an appeal, which was heard by Justice Tan in January 2023.
Ahead of the appeal, Mr Cheng discharged SKK as his lawyers and engaged Mr Foo instead.
LAWYERS’ ABSENCES CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE: JUDGE
Justice Tan allowed the appeal. He said the conduct of the lawyers from SKK was “plainly contumelious and unsatisfactory”, and that their repeated absences from the pre-trial conferences were “clearly unacceptable”.
He said that the striking out of Mr Cheng’s statement of claim due to the absence of the SKK solicitors was “a disproportionate consequence in this case”.
He said there was no suggestion that the conduct of the lawyers was instigated by Mr Cheng or attributable to him.
While the first assistant registrar was “understandably displeased” with the lawyers’ conduct, he should not have allowed a certain order as it would adversely affect Mr Cheng’s claim.
“The effect of having his statement of claim struck out would lead to the plaintiff being unable to obtain justice for his road traffic accident case for the second time,” said Justice Tan.
“This was surely through no fault of the plaintiff but the result of his errant solicitors’ contumelious conduct.”
He added that the defendant had not suffered any “irremediable prejudice” due to the delay arising from the lawyers’ absences.
Justice Tan said that what is “particularly ironic in this case” is that the striking out of Mr Cheng’s statement of claim was because of the “irresponsible and lackadaisical conduct of SKK” in how they handled the negligence suit.
As a result of the order, Mr Cheng is unable to pursue a claim against Mr Latimer “simply because of the errant conduct of SKK”.
Justice Tan said that both Mr Cheng’s district court suit against the lorry driver and the negligence suit against Mr Latimer were struck out as a result of “the errant conduct” of his two sets of lawyers.
“Thus, the plaintiff was gravely disadvantaged twice in his attempts to seek recourse and justice for his road traffic accident case,” said Justice Tan.
He said he found the striking out order “draconian and disproportionate in the circumstances” because Mr Cheng was not at fault, but had to bear the consequences of the SKK lawyers’ misconduct.
Justice Tan said he would hear parties on the appropriate amount of costs to be paid by Mr Cheng’s past and present lawyers for the appeal, as well as for their absence from a previous pre-trial conference.