Sports Connection v Asia Law Corp: Taxation of Legal Fees & Special Circumstances
Sports Connection Pte Ltd applied to the High Court of Singapore on 23 July 2010 to tax invoices from Asia Law Corp and Samuel Seow Law Corporation for legal fees related to Suit No 630 of 1999. The court, presided over by Steven Chong J, ordered taxation for some invoices but not others, finding no written agreement on costs and insufficient special circumstances to justify taxation of invoices delivered or paid more than 12 months prior to the application. The application was partially allowed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Partial order for taxation granted; taxation ordered for some invoices but not others.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sports Connection sought to tax invoices from Asia Law Corp and Samuel Seow Law Corp. The court addressed agreements on costs and special circumstances.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sports Connection Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Partial Order for Taxation Granted | Partial | Samuel Chacko, Peter Wadeley |
| Asia Law Corp | Respondent | Corporation | Partial Order for Taxation Granted | Partial | Axel Chan |
| Samuel Seow Law Corporation | Respondent | Law Firm | Partial Order for Taxation Granted | Partial | Kevin Lee Ming Hui |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Samuel Chacko | Legis Point LLC |
| Peter Wadeley | Legis Point LLC |
| Axel Chan | Attorneys Inc LLC |
| Kevin Lee Ming Hui | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Sports Connection Pte Ltd applied to tax invoices from two law firms.
- The invoices related to professional fees for conducting Suit No 630 of 1999.
- Some invoices were delivered and/or paid more than 12 months before the application.
- The Applicant had previously instructed multiple law firms for the Suit.
- The Applicant followed Mr. Shahiran when he moved between law firms.
- The Applicant negotiated payment of some invoices by installments.
- The dispute over fees emerged after the outcome of the assessment hearing.
5. Formal Citations
- Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corp and another, Originating Summons No 1076/2009/C, [2010] SGHC 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit commenced against M/s Swami & Narayan. | |
| Applicant succeeded in actions in Malaysia. | |
| Interlocutory judgment obtained against M/s Swami & Narayan by consent. | |
| Conduct of Suit transferred to Asia Law Corporation. | |
| First proforma invoice issued by Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Rajah & Tann made payment to Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Second proforma invoice issued by Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Rajah & Tann made payment to Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Third proforma invoice issued by Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Mr. Shahiran joined Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| First invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Second invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Third invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Fourth invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Fifth invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Mr. Shahiran rejoined Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Sixth and seventh invoices issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Eighth invoice issued by Samuel Seow Law Corporation. | |
| Fourth proforma invoice issued by Asia Law Corporation. | |
| Letter from Applicant's present solicitors regarding taxation of invoices. | |
| Conduct of Suit transferred to M/s Legis Point LLC. | |
| Originating Summons filed by Legis Point LLC. | |
| Hearing of the Originating Summons. | |
| Hearing of the Originating Summons. | |
| Oral grounds delivered and orders made. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxation of Solicitor's Bill
- Outcome: The court ordered taxation for some invoices but not others, finding no written agreement on costs and insufficient special circumstances.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Special circumstances for taxation after 12 months
- Written agreement on costs
- Running account
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for Taxation of Solicitor's Bill
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Taxation of Costs
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Legal Fee Disputes
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v Gwillim | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 510 | England and Wales | Cited with approval for the principle of balancing the protection of the client and the solicitor in ordering taxation of invoices. |
| Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 206 | Singapore | Cited for approving the principle in Ralph Hume Garry regarding the balance between protecting the client and the solicitor. |
| Chamberlain v Boodle & King | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1982] 1 WLR 1443 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a written agreement on costs must be specific and signed by the client to deprive them of the right to tax. |
| Shamsudin bin Embun v PT Seah & Co | High Court | Yes | [1985–1986] SLR(R) 1108 | Singapore | Cited for approving the passage in Chamberlain regarding the specificity required for a contentious business agreement. |
| Wee Harry Lee v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 603 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion of what constitutes 'special circumstances' under s 122 of the Legal Profession Act. |
| In Re Cheeseman | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1891] 2 Ch 289 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court determines whether special circumstances justify taxation of a solicitor's bill after payment. |
| Re Boycott | Court of Appeal | No | (1885) 29 Ch D 571 | England and Wales | Discussed regarding the interpretation of 'special circumstances' and whether it is limited to pressure and overcharge amounting to fraud. The court clarified that special circumstances are not restricted only to cases involving fraud, duress or pressure. |
| Norman, Re | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1885–86) LR 16 QBD 673 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that 'special circumstances' are not limited to pressure and overcharge. |
| Hirst & Capes v Fox | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1908] 1 KB 982 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the discretion of a judge regarding 'special circumstances' should not be overruled unless not exercised judicially. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 111 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 113(3) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 120(1) of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 122 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Taxation of costs
- Special circumstances
- Written agreement on costs
- Running account
- Proforma invoice
- Legal Profession Act
- Solicitor's bill
- Invoices
- Estoppel
15.2 Keywords
- Taxation
- Legal fees
- Special circumstances
- Invoices
- Solicitor
- Costs
- Agreement
16. Subjects
- Legal Costs
- Solicitor-Client Relationship
17. Areas of Law
- Legal Profession Act
- Taxation of Costs
- Civil Procedure