Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Chor Pee & Partners: Legal Fee Agreement Dispute
In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Chor Pee & Partners, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding a dispute over legal fees. Wee Soon Kim Anthony engaged Chor Pee & Partners to handle a lawsuit, Suit No 834 of 2001. The central issue was whether an agreement existed between Wee and the law firm regarding the legal fees for the case. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that an agreement existed for a lump sum fee of $275,000 based on the parties' conduct and the tax invoice issued.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal held that an agreement existed for a lump sum legal fee based on conduct and a tax invoice, despite the lack of a formal signed agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Chor Pee & Partners | Respondent | Partnership | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ling Leong Hui | Arul Chew and Partners |
| Alvin Yeo | Wong Partnership |
| Andre Arul | Arul Chew and Partners |
4. Facts
- Wee engaged Lim from Chor Pee & Partners to take over an ongoing lawsuit.
- Lim sent Wee a fee proposal via email.
- Wee requested a capped fee instead of a per-day charge.
- Lim responded with a revised fee agreement on a lump sum basis.
- The revised fee agreement was never explicitly sent to Wee.
- Wee paid invoices totaling $275,000.
- An invoice dated 12 June 2003 stated 'To our fees $275,000'.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Chor Pee & Partners, CA 43/2005, [2005] SGCA 53
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 834 of 2001 filed | |
| Wee approached Lim to take over Suit No 834 of 2001 | |
| Lim sent Wee an e-mail with a fee proposal | |
| Wee replied to Lim requesting a capped fee | |
| Lim responded with a revised fee agreement | |
| Respondent issued an invoice to Wee for $50,000, which was paid | |
| Respondent issued an invoice to Wee with a balance of $34,733, which was paid | |
| Trial of Suit No 834 was resumed | |
| Judgment in Suit No 834 was delivered, dismissing the action | |
| Wee unsuccessfully appealed the judgment (Civil Appeal No 1 of 2004) | |
| Lim forwarded the consultant’s invoice for the balance of $11,771 for payment | |
| Wee’s personal assistant faxed a note to Lim regarding the consultant’s fees | |
| Lim wrote to Wee to confirm the terms of the retainer | |
| Appeal heard by the Court of Appeal | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Agreement on Legal Fees
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that an agreement existed between the solicitor and client for a lump sum fee of $275,000.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to tax bill of costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clare v Joseph | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1907] 2 KB 369 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that agreements between a solicitor and client are viewed with great jealousy by the Courts, but are enforceable if fair to the client. |
| Gundry v Sainsbury | N/A | Yes | [1910] 1 KB 645 | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that an oral agreement on remuneration between a solicitor and a client can be given effect. |
| In Re R G Thompson ex parte Baylis | N/A | Yes | [1894] 1 QB 462 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a document signed by the client alone is sufficient to satisfy the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870. |
| Bake v French (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1907] 2 Ch 215 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a document signed by the client alone is sufficient to satisfy the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870. |
| Re Raven, Ex parte Pitt | N/A | Yes | (1881) 45 LT 742 | England and Wales | Cited as a case that was disapproved regarding the requirement of both solicitor and client signatures on an agreement. |
| Electrical Trades Union v Tarlo | N/A | Yes | [1964] Ch 720 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that Section 59 of the Solicitors Act 1957 preserves the position established by Clare v. Joseph, and a client may take advantage of a special agreement in contentious business even though that agreement is not in writing. |
| Pontifex v Farnham | N/A | Yes | [1892] 62 LJQB 344 | England and Wales | Cited as a case that was disapproved regarding the requirement of both solicitor and client signatures on an agreement. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Chor Pee & Partners | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR 433 | Singapore | The decision below that was appealed in the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Legal fees
- Lump sum fee
- Fee agreement
- Taxation of costs
- Solicitor-client agreement
- Contentious matter
15.2 Keywords
- legal fees
- solicitor
- client
- agreement
- contract
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 95 |
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 90 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 75 |
| Solicitor's fees | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Fees
- Solicitor-Client Relationship
- Contract Law