Chew Kim Kee v Kertar and Co: Negligence Claim for Failure to Advise on Appeal Deadline in Matrimonial Asset Division
In Chew Kim Kee v Kertar & Co, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Chew Kim Kee against Kertar & Co, alleging negligence and breach of duty for failing to advise her on the appeal deadline regarding a decision on the division of matrimonial assets. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that the solicitor-client relationship had ended prior to the appeal deadline and that the plaintiff was not credible.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chew Kim Kee sues Kertar & Co for negligence, alleging failure to advise on the appeal deadline for a matrimonial asset division order. The court dismissed the action.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chew Kim Kee | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Leonard Loo, Edwin Loo |
| Kertar and Co | Defendant | Partnership | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Chelva Rajah, Imran H Khwaja, Eusuff Ali |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leonard Loo | Leonard Loo and Co |
| Edwin Loo | Leonard Loo and Co |
| Chelva Rajah | Tan Rajah and Cheah |
| Imran H Khwaja | Tan Rajah and Cheah |
| Eusuff Ali | Tan Rajah and Cheah |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff engaged the defendant to institute matrimonial proceedings against her husband.
- A decree nisi was granted on the plaintiff’s petition on 8 October 1998.
- The district judge handed down a decision on 21 September 1999 regarding the division of matrimonial assets, awarding the plaintiff $1.6m.
- The plaintiff allegedly terminated the services of the defendant on 22 September 1999.
- The deadline for filing an appeal against the Order was 5 October 1999.
- The defendant did not file a notice of appeal by the deadline.
- The plaintiff appointed a new firm of solicitors, Thomas Tham & Co, on 19 October 1999.
5. Formal Citations
- Chew Kim Kee v Kertar and Co, Suit 1263/2002/Y, [2004] SGHC 95
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff engaged the defendant as her advocate and solicitor. | |
| Decree nisi granted on the plaintiff’s petition. | |
| District Judge Kathryn Low handed down her decision regarding the division of matrimonial assets. | |
| Plaintiff allegedly terminated the services of the defendant. | |
| Deadline for filing an appeal against the Order. | |
| Defendant approved the draft order of court prepared by the husband’s lawyers. | |
| Thomas Tham & Co notified the defendant that they had taken over the conduct of the matter. | |
| Defendant replied to Thomas Tham & Co stating that the matter had been concluded. | |
| Plaintiff paid the defendant’s professional fees. | |
| Defendant released the files to Thomas Tham & Co. | |
| Notice of change of solicitors was filed and served. | |
| All files were handed over. | |
| Plaintiff resold the matrimonial property for $1.4m. | |
| Sharanjit left the defendant firm. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Termination of Solicitor-Client Retainer
- Outcome: The court found that the solicitor-client relationship had ended prior to the appeal deadline.
- Category: Substantive
- Solicitor's Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant owed no duty to advise the plaintiff on the appeal deadline because the solicitor-client relationship had ended.
- Category: Substantive
- Causation in Negligence
- Outcome: The court was not persuaded that there was a causal link between the alleged breach of duty and the alleged loss of opportunity to appeal.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Duty
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Divorce
- Professional Negligence
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp | N/A | Yes | [1979] Ch 384 | N/A | Cited for the obligation of an advocate and solicitor to exercise the care and skill of a competent practitioner. |
| Chong Yeo & Partners v Guan Ming Hardware & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 729 | Singapore | Cited for the advocate and solicitor’s obligation to observe the Rules of Court. |
| Gamlen Chemical Co (UK) Ltd v Rochem Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 WLR 614 | N/A | Cited to explain the legal position of an advocate and solicitor whose name remains on record after termination of the retainer. |
| Harwood v Taylor Vinters | N/A | Yes | [2003] TLR 191 | N/A | Cited for the principle that it is not necessary as a matter of law for an advocate and solicitor to advise in writing rather than orally. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, S 80, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) O 64 r 5(1) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Retainer
- Solicitor-client relationship
- Duty of care
- Appeal deadline
- Matrimonial assets
- Negligence
- Breach of duty
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- solicitor
- appeal
- matrimonial assets
- duty of care
- retainer
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Legal Malpractice
- Professional Responsibility
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession
- Tort
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law