Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers: Professional Negligence Claim
In Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the plaintiff, Ong Jane Rebecca, to vacate trial dates in a professional negligence suit against PricewaterhouseCoopers and others. The court vacated only the first week of trial dates and issued new directions, including 'unless' orders, for the plaintiff to comply with set timelines, failing which her claim would be struck out. The court granted the plaintiff leave to appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
First week of trial dates vacated; new directions issued with 'unless' orders.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ong Jane Rebecca sues PricewaterhouseCoopers for professional negligence. The court vacated the first week of trial dates and issued new directions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Jane Rebecca | Plaintiff | Individual | Partial compliance ordered | Partial | Engelin Teh, Anthony Soh, Andrew Ho |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers | Defendant | Corporation | Partial compliance ordered | Partial | Ang Cheng Hock, Ramesh Selvaraj, Sylvia Tee |
| Others | Defendant | Other | Partial compliance ordered | Partial | Chandra Mohan, Gillian Hauw |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Engelin Teh | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
| Anthony Soh | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
| Andrew Ho | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Ramesh Selvaraj | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Sylvia Tee | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Chandra Mohan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Gillian Hauw | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- JRO filed a claim against three defendants for professional negligence.
- JRO appointed the first and second defendants as her forensic accounting experts.
- JRO appointed the third defendant as her solicitors in Originating Summons No 939 of 1991.
- JRO claimed the defendants acted negligently in respect of an inquiry to determine her share in her father-in-law’s estate.
- JRO filed a protective writ of summons in early 2006 to avoid any issue of limitation of time.
- JRO did not comply with the direction to extract the 1 April 2011 order by 6 June 2011.
- JRO was in financial difficulties and had entered into an Individual Voluntary Arrangement in the United Kingdom.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers and others, Suit No 156 of 2006, Summons No 3655 of 2011, Registrar's Appeal Nos 255, 256 and 257 of 2011; 261, 262 and 263 of 2011, [2011] SGHC 203
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons No 939 filed | |
| High Court directed an inquiry to determine JRO’s share in her father-in-law’s estate | |
| Writ of summons filed in Suit No 156 of 2006 | |
| Writ served on first and second defendants | |
| Statement of Claim filed and served | |
| Plaintiff’s list of documents filed | |
| Court vacates trial dates commencing 2009-07-06 | |
| Ong Jane Rebecca appoints Engelin Teh Practice LLC | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1) filed | |
| Originating Summons No 1022 filed | |
| JRO instructs ETP to suspend substantive work | |
| Pre-trial conference held; directions given | |
| Notice of Intention to Act in Person filed for JRO | |
| D3 files application to strike out substantial portion of SOC (Amendment No 1) | |
| JRO informs Allen & Gledhill she will apply for extension of timelines and to vacate trial dates | |
| JRO re-appoints ETP | |
| Deadline for AEIC of witnesses to be filed and exchanged | |
| PTC; AR orders JRO to file factual AEICs by 2011-08-19 | |
| ETP files Present Summons | |
| ETP files three appeals in respect of AR Leo’s decision of 2011-08-15 | |
| Hearing of the remaining prayers in Summons Nos 3491, 3492 and 3542 of 2011 for the “unless” orders. The prayers are dismissed. | |
| Defendants file three appeals against AR Leo’s decision of 2011-08-22 | |
| Second hearing of Present Summons and the six appeals | |
| Decision given to vacate only the first week of Present Hearing Dates |
7. Legal Issues
- Vacation of Trial Dates
- Outcome: The court declined to vacate all trial dates but vacated the first week and issued new directions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with court directions
- Delays in proceedings
- Professional Negligence
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the merits of the professional negligence claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Unless Orders
- Outcome: The court issued 'unless' orders against the plaintiff.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- History of failure to comply with court orders
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Accounting
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Chew | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be strong compelling reasons before a court will consider the exercise of its discretion to vacate trial dates. |
| Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 1666 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that 'unless' orders may be granted if there is a history of failure to comply with other orders. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff and another v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the principle in Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council regarding the granting of 'unless' orders. |
| Singapura Building Society Limited v Djie Sui Tjhiang and others | High Court | No | [1996] SGHC 211 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that poverty and the absence of legal advice was no excuse for a lay litigant to fail to comply with court orders or rules of court. |
| Chong Fook Choy v Alvin Liau | District Court | No | [2001] SGDC 187 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that poverty and the absence of legal advice was no excuse for a lay litigant to fail to comply with court orders or rules of court. |
| DK v DL | District Court | No | [2004] SGDC 199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that poverty and the absence of legal advice was no excuse for a lay litigant to fail to comply with court orders or rules of court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Professional negligence
- Vacate trial dates
- Unless orders
- Individual Voluntary Arrangement
- Forensic accounting experts
- Protective writ
- Pre-trial conference
- Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief
15.2 Keywords
- professional negligence
- trial dates
- court orders
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Professional Liability
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Professional Negligence