Tan King Hiang v United Engineers: Solicitors' Liability for Costs in Bankruptcy Appeal
In Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an application by Tan King Hiang for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court ordered costs of $1,500 against Tan King Hiang's solicitors personally, finding they failed to obtain the Official Assignee's sanction after Tan King Hiang was adjudged bankrupt, rendering him incompetent to proceed with the application. The original suit involved a claim by United Engineers against Tan King Hiang and others for conspiracy to corruptly secure contracts.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicant's solicitors personally.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was dismissed. The court ordered costs against the solicitors personally due to their failure to obtain Official Assignee's sanction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan King Hiang | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Gopinath Pillai |
| United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Andre Yeap, Adrian Wong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gopinath Pillai | Tan Peng Chin LLC |
| Andre Yeap | Rajah and Tann |
| Adrian Wong | Rajah and Tann |
4. Facts
- Tan King Hiang sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
- Tan King Hiang was adjudged a bankrupt after the application was filed.
- Tan King Hiang's solicitors proceeded without obtaining the Official Assignee's sanction.
- The Official Assignee initially gave conditional consent but later required security for costs.
- Tan King Hiang failed to furnish the required security.
- The application was dismissed due to Tan King Hiang's incompetence to proceed.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd, OM 8/2005, [2005] SGCA 32
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judith Prakash J gave decision in Suit No 13 of 2004. | |
| Sin Yong Ltd sent a letter to Prakash J. | |
| Sin Yong Ltd was wound up. | |
| Registrar of the Supreme Court replied to the directors of Sin Yong Ltd. | |
| Tan King Hiang applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. | |
| Lee Lip Hiong was adjudged a bankrupt. | |
| Andrew Ang JC made no order regarding the extension of time to file a notice of appeal. | |
| Tan King Hiang was adjudged a bankrupt. | |
| Tan King Hiang filed the application in OM 8/2005 to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Tan King Hiang’s solicitors wrote to the Official Assignee for approval to continue with the proceeding. | |
| The Official Assignee gave his conditional consent. | |
| The Official Assignee qualified his consent further to require Tan King Hiang to deposit a sum of $40,000. | |
| The application was heard and dismissed with costs. |
7. Legal Issues
- Solicitors' Liability for Costs
- Outcome: The court held the solicitors personally liable for costs due to their failure to obtain the Official Assignee's sanction after their client was adjudged bankrupt.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to conduct proceedings with reasonable competence
- Failure to conduct proceedings with reasonable expedition
- Competency of Bankrupt to Pursue Legal Action
- Outcome: The court held that the bankrupt was incompetent to pursue the application without the Official Assignee's sanction.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sanction of Official Assignee
- Taking further steps in proceedings without sanction
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file a notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Insolvency Litigation
- Bankruptcy Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 340 | Singapore | Reaffirmed the three-stage test conceived in In re a Barrister (Wasted Costs Order) (No 1 of 1991) and enunciated in Ridehalgh v Horsefield as to how the jurisdiction of the court under Order 59 r 8(1) should be exercised. |
| In re a Barrister (Wasted Costs Order) (No 1 of 1991) | N/A | Yes | [1993] QB 293 | England | Conceived the three-stage test as to how the jurisdiction of the court under Order 59 r 8(1) should be exercised. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England | Enunciated the three-stage test as to how the jurisdiction of the court under Order 59 r 8(1) should be exercised and considered the meaning and scope of the terms “improper”, “unreasonable” and “negligent”. |
| Richland Trade & Development Sdn Bhd v United Malayan Banking Corp Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1996] 4 MLJ 233 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that pending actions of a party who has become a bankrupt will not lapse or abate on that account or that that the bankrupt is required to withdraw the actions pending the obtaining of sanction from the OA. |
| Yonge v Toynbee | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1910] 1 KB 215 | England | Cited for the principle that a solicitor acting for a party warrants that he has authority to do so and should be made personally liable to pay for the plaintiff’s costs where the party is incapacitated. |
| Simmons v Liberal Opinion Limited | N/A | Yes | [1911] 1 KB 966 | England | Cited for the principle that a solicitor who entered an appearance warranted that he had the authority from his client to do so. |
| Amos William Dawe v Development & Commercial Bank (Ltd) Berhad | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [1981] 1 MLJ 230 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that all costs incurred after the solicitors knew of the bankruptcy of their client be borne personally by the solicitors. |
| Mohd Yusof bin Awang v Malayan Banking Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1995] 4 MLJ 493 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that by taking out the action, the solicitor was deemed to have warranted that he had the authority to act on behalf of the first plaintiff. |
| Brendon v Spiro | N/A | Yes | [1938] 1 KB 176 | England | Cited for the principle that the court has summary jurisdiction over the solicitors as officers of the court. |
| Mitra & Co v Thevar & Anor | N/A | Yes | [1960] MLJ 79 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the procedure adopted by Hepworth J in calling upon the appellant to show cause why the costs incurred by the plaintiff should not be disallowed as between solicitor and client and also why he should not repay to his client the costs awarded to the defendant in the action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) Order 59 r 8(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) Order 59 r 8(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Official Assignee
- Bankruptcy
- Sanction
- Costs
- Solicitors' Liability
- Reasonable Competence
- Reasonable Expedition
15.2 Keywords
- Bankruptcy
- Solicitor
- Costs
- Official Assignee
- Legal Ethics
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Costs
- Legal Ethics
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency Law
- Bankruptcy Law
- Costs