Lau Hwee Beng v Ong Teck Ghee: Summary Judgment & Solicitor's Duty to Account

In Lau Hwee Beng and Another v Ong Teck Ghee, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Assistant Registrar Paul Tan, addressed the plaintiffs' claim for an account of $350,000 given to the defendant, their solicitor, for investment purposes. The plaintiffs sought summary judgment, arguing the defendant was their solicitor and thus had a duty to account. The defendant countered that he acted for a third party, Mr. Lee, and sought to strike out the claim. The court dismissed both applications, finding a triable issue regarding the solicitor-client relationship and concluding that the striking out application did not meet the high threshold required.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications in SUM 5583/2006 and SUM 916/2007 dismissed; costs to be taxed if not agreed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment Reserved

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs seek account from solicitor for $350,000 investment. Court dismisses summary judgment, finding triable issue on solicitor-client relationship.

1.7 Decision Date

29 May 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lau Hwee Beng	Plaintiff	Individual	Application Dismissed	Dismissed	Ang Cheng Koon Benjamin
Chong Shin Leong	Plaintiff	Individual	Application Dismissed	Dismissed	Ang Cheng Koon Benjamin
Ong Teck Ghee	Defendant	Individual	Application to Strike Out Dismissed	Dismissed	Cheo Chai Beng Benny

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Paul Tan	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ang Cheng Koon Benjamin	Engelin Teh
Cheo Chai Beng Benny	Cheo Yeoh & Associates

4. Facts

Plaintiffs paid $350,000 to the defendant, their solicitor.
The money was intended for investment in Beijing Asean and Abundant.
Plaintiffs instructed the defendant to pay the money to Mr. Lee.
Plaintiffs requested an account of the moneys from the defendant.
Defendant refused to provide an account, claiming he acted for Mr. Lee.
Plaintiffs allege the defendant was their solicitor in the transaction.
Defendant denies acting as the plaintiffs' solicitor in this transaction.

5. Formal Citations

Lau Hwee Beng and Another v Ong Teck Ghee, Suit 715/2006, SUM 5583/2006, 916/2007, [2007] SGHC 90

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-01	Plaintiffs agreed to invest in Beijing Asean and Abundant.
2004-03-04	First plaintiff executed co-investment agreements.
2004-03-08	Second plaintiff executed co-investment agreements.
2004-12-01	First plaintiff requested Mr Lee to return the moneys.
2006-09-25	Plaintiffs requested an account of the moneys paid to the defendant.
2006-10-05	Plaintiffs sent a letter of demand seeking repayment of the moneys.
2006-10-10	Defendant admitted to receiving the moneys but refused to return the moneys or give an account.
2006-10-17	Plaintiffs insisted that the defendant render an account of the moneys.
2007-05-30	Judgment Reserved

7. Legal Issues

Duty to Account
- Outcome: The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether the defendant owed the plaintiffs a duty to account.
- Category: Substantive
Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for summary judgment, finding that there was a triable issue.
- Category: Procedural
Striking Out
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to strike out the pleadings.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Account of Moneys
Repayment of Moneys

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Failure to Account

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Professional Negligence

11. Industries

Legal Services
Investment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Apollo Enterprises Ltd v Dynasty Theatre Nite-Club KTV & Lounge Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1995] SGHC 72	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether there is a fair or reasonable probability of the defendant setting up a defence.
National Westminster Bank v Daniel	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 WLR 1453	England and Wales	Cited for the test of whether there is a fair or reasonable probability of the defendant setting up a defence.
Paris et des Pays-Bas (Suisse) SA v Costa de Naray	N/A	Yes	[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21	N/A	Cited for the test of whether the defendant has a real or bona fide defence.
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 32	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether the defendant has a real or bona fide defence.
Jones v Stone	N/A	Yes	[1894] AC 122	N/A	Cited for the principle that the proper inquiry is whether there is reasonable doubt that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment, and whether it is inexpedient to allow the defendant to defend for mere purposes of delay.
Habibullah Mohamed Yousoff v Indian Bank	N/A	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR 650	Singapore	Endorses Jones v Stone.
Maybank Finance (Singapore) Ltd v Yap Thiam Sen and Anor	N/A	Yes	[1990] SLR 501	Singapore	Cited for whether triable issues are raised.
Bhojwani and Anor v Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1990] SLR 128	Singapore	Cited for whether triable issues are raised.
Stone Forest Consulting v Wee Poh Holdings	N/A	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR 216	Singapore	Cited for whether the defendant has a fairly arguable point.
Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 MLJ 400	Malaysia	Cited for whether the claim is virtually uncontested or uncontestable.
Syn Lee & Co v Bank of China	N/A	Yes	[1961] MLJ 87	N/A	Cited for whether there is a moral improbability of a very high degree that the defendant can succeed.
Hua Khian Ceramics Tiles Supplies v Torie Construction	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 884	Singapore	Cited for a robust approach to ensure that the true purpose of the arguments raised by the defendant is not to cause delay to the plaintiff.
Swain v Hillam	N/A	Yes	[2001] 1 All ER 91	England and Wales	Cited for the test of whether there is a reasonable prospect of success.
Hercules Management Ltd v Ernst & Young	Supreme Court	Yes	[1997] 2 SCR 165	Canada	Cited for the test of whether a party opposing summary judgment must show a real chance of success.
Guarantee Co. of North America v Gordon Capital Corp	Supreme Court	Yes	[1999] SCR 423	Canada	Cited for the test of whether a party opposing summary judgment must show a real chance of success.
Irving Ungerman Ltd v Galanis	N/A	Yes	(1991) 83 D.L.R. (4th) 734	Canada	Cited for the test of whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
Paclantic v Moscow Narodny Bank	N/A	Yes	[1983] 1 WLR 1063	N/A	Cited for the principle that a judge should only reject evidence in an affidavit if it is inherently unreliable.
Paclantic v Moscow Narodny Bank	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 469	England and Wales	Cast doubt on the correctness of the approach in Paclantic v Moscow Narodny Bank [1983] 1 WLR 1063.
Eng Mee Yong v Letchumanan	Privy Council	Yes	[1979] 2 MLJ 212	N/A	Acknowledged that a judge is not bound to accept uncritically every statement on an affidavit.
Suppuletchimi v Palmco Bina	High Court of Penang	Yes	[1994] 2 MLJ 368	Malaysia	Proposed that there were three standards of scrutiny that a court could bring to bear on affidavit evidence: minimal, optimal and maximal evaluation.
United Overseas Bank v Ng Huat Foundations	N/A	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR 425	Singapore	Made a similar observation that processural and substantive justice are intrinsically intertwined.
Dawson v Rexcraft Storage Warehouse Inc	N/A	Yes	(1999) 164 D.L.R. (4th) 257	Canada	Summary judgment is a vindication of processural and substantive justice.
Aguonie v Galion Solid Waste Material Inc.	N/A	Yes	(1998) 156 D.L.R. (4th) 222	Canada	Summary judgment is a vindication of processural and substantive justice.
Marina Sports v Alliance Richfield	N/A	Yes	[1990] 3 MLJ 5	N/A	A judge at this stage does not make findings on the merits of the case.
Chung Khiaw Bank Ltd v Bhojwani	N/A	Yes	[1990] 2 MLJ 146	N/A	Discrepancies pointed out by the defendant were immaterial.
Uni-france Offshore Engineering v Owners of the ‘Cotan Challenger’	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 297	Singapore	A judge should scrutinise the entire record with care so as to ensure that the defendant’s position is articulated with sufficient particularity and supported by cogent evidence.
1061590 Ontario Ltd v Ontario Jockey Club	N/A	Yes	(1995) 21 O.R. (3d) 547	Canada	The party responding to an application for summary judgment must lead trump or risk losing.
Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai (trading as South Kerala Cashew Exporters) v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 42	Singapore	It is not proper for the court to assume that every sworn averment is true.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v Zenith Radio Corp.	Supreme Court of the United States	Yes	475 U.S. 574 (1986)	United States	The defendant must cast more than a mere metaphysical doubt upon the plaintiff’s case.
Hills v Sklivas	Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[1995] 1 VR 599	Australia	Refused summary judgment because of the inadequacies of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, deficiencies in his proof and the nature and circumstances of the transaction on which he sued, even though the defendant had failed to put up any defence.
Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty	N/A	Yes	[1991] 3 MLJ 234	Malaysia	This is anchored on the judicial policy to afford the litigant the right to institute a bona fide claim before the courts and to prosecute it in the usual way.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and Ors	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 374	Singapore	A reasonable cause of action connotes a cause of action which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered.
Drummond- Jackson v British Medical Association	N/A	Yes	[1970] 1 All ER 1094	N/A	A reasonable cause of action connotes a cause of action which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered.
Ko Teck Siang v Low Fong Mei	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 454	Singapore	The court is confined to examining the pleadings themselves.
Wenlock v Moloney & Ors	N/A	Yes	[1965] 2 All ER 871	N/A	The court is confined to examining the pleadings themselves.
Lawrence v Lord Norreys	N/A	Yes	[1886–90] All ER 858	N/A	It cannot be doubted that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an action which is an abuse of the process of the court.
Chee Siok Chin and Others v Minister for Home Affairs and Another	N/A	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 582	Singapore	Defines abuse of process.
Lonrho v Fayed (No 5)	N/A	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Defines abuse of process.
David v Wee, Satku & Kumar	N/A	Yes	[1993] 2 SLR 126	Singapore	Granted summary judgment to the defendant on a general notion of the inherent powers of the court.
Dyson v A-G	N/A	Yes	[1911] 1 KB 410	N/A	To permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
r 24.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132)
O 14 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 18 r 19 of the Rules
O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules
O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules
O 14 r 2(3)
O 34A r 1(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Summary Judgment
Striking Out
Duty to Account
Solicitor-Client Relationship
Investment
Beijing Asean Union Consulting Co Ltd
Abundant Performance Ltd

15.2 Keywords

Summary Judgment
Striking Out
Duty to Account
Solicitor
Investment
Singapore

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Equity
Professional Responsibility

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Equity
Legal Profession
Contract Law