Tung Hui Mannequin v Tenet Insurance: Solicitor's Authority to Act & Costs
In Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed Registrar's Appeals concerning an order for costs. The central issue was whether it is incorrect practice for one solicitor to request another to produce their warrant to act. The court dismissed the appeals, finding that the defendants had a reasonable basis to file applications to strike out the action due to the plaintiff's solicitors' refusal to produce evidence of their authority to act, and awarded costs to the defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case regarding a solicitor's authority to act and the reasonableness of striking out an action. The court dismissed the appeals with costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tenet Insurance Co Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Costs awarded | Won | |
| Tung Hui Mannequin Industries | Plaintiff, Appellant | Partnership | Appeals dismissed with costs | Lost | |
| Tan Ai Lian | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Tai Mok Yam | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Teo Weng Kie | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Teamwood Decoration and Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Rebecca Chew | Rajah and Tann |
| Gn Chiang Soon | Gn and Company |
4. Facts
- Gn & Co acted for Tung Hui Mannequin Industries in a previous suit against Team Wood.
- The partnership firm Tung Hui Mannequin Industries was terminated on 14 February 2003.
- Gn & Co sent letters alleging collusion and conspiracy without properly identifying their client.
- Defendants' solicitors questioned Gn & Co's authority to act and requested to inspect the warrant to act.
- Gn & Co refused to produce the warrant to act.
- The first and fourth defendants filed applications to strike out the action.
- Mr Lu and Mr Udom made a joint affidavit confirming they had authorized Gn & Co to commence the action.
5. Formal Citations
- Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co Ltd and Others, Suit 677/2004, RA 335/2004, 336/2004, [2005] SGHC 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tung Hui Mannequin Industries commenced High Court Suit No 1777 of 1999 against Team Wood Decoration & Construction Pte Ltd. | |
| Judgment delivered in Suit 1777, finding Team Wood to be negligent and ordering it to pay damages and costs. | |
| Partnership firm Tung Hui Mannequin Industries terminated. | |
| Gn & Co wrote to the first and fourth defendants alleging collusion and conspiracy. | |
| Rajah & Tann replied to Gn & Co, questioning their authority to act. | |
| Rajah & Tann wrote to Gn & Co on behalf of the first defendant, questioning their authority to act. | |
| The first defendant wrote separate letters to Mr Lu and Mr Udom asking for confirmation that they had instructed Gn & Co. | |
| The first and fourth defendants each filed an originating summons against Mr Lu and Mr Udom. | |
| Gn & Co entered appearance for both Mr Lu and Mr Udom. | |
| Summonses heard and Mr Lu and Mr Udom ordered to give discovery of the warrant to act. | |
| Gn & Co filed notices of appeal against the orders for pre-action discovery. | |
| Appeals against the discovery orders heard before Tay Yong Kwang J, stay of execution granted. | |
| Shook Lin & Bok and Rajah & Tann wrote to Gn & Co demanding production of the warrant to act. | |
| Gn & Co replied to Shook Lin & Bok and Rajah & Tann, refusing to produce the warrant to act. | |
| Each of the first and fourth defendants filed an application asking for orders that the suit be struck out. | |
| Mr Lu and Mr Udom made a joint affidavit confirming they had instructed and authorised Mr Gn and his firm to act for them. | |
| Mr Gn affirmed an affidavit. | |
| Applications heard in November. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Authority of Solicitor to Act
- Outcome: The court held that it is not incorrect practice for one solicitor to question another solicitor’s authority and to demand to inspect that solicitor’s warrant to act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Absence of warrant to act
- Challenging solicitor's authority
- Striking Out Action
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants had a reasonable basis to file applications to strike out the action.
- Category: Procedural
- Costs
- Outcome: The court awarded costs to the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of action
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waugh v H B Clifford & Sons Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] Ch 374 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a party and their solicitor should generally be able to rely on the authority of the opposing solicitor, and that proof of authority should only be required in exceptional cases. |
| Allen v Bone | N/A | Yes | (1841) 4 Beav 493 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a solicitor has a duty to obtain written authority from their client before commencing a suit, and the consequences of failing to do so. |
| William Jacks & Co (M) Sdn Bhd v Chemquip (M) Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 MLJ 555 | Malaysia | Cited for the proposition that a challenge to the authority of solicitors to institute an action may be made at any time. |
| Sarawak Building Supplies Sdn Bhd v Director of Forests | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1MLJ 211 | Malaysia | Cited in support of the proposition that once a challenge to a solicitor's authority has been made, the burden of proving that the suit had been instituted with proper authority rests on the plaintiff. |
| Syawal Enterprise Sdn Bhd v Dayadiri Sdn Bhd | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 MLJ 26 | Malaysia | Cited in support of the proposition that once a challenge to a solicitor's authority has been made, the burden of proving that the suit had been instituted with proper authority rests on the plaintiff. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 131, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Warrant to act
- Authority to act
- Striking out
- Costs
- Solicitor
- Legal practice
- Rules of Court
- Pre-action discovery
15.2 Keywords
- Solicitor's authority
- Warrant to act
- Striking out application
- Costs
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 70 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Agency Law