Tan & Au LLP v Goh Teh Lee: Professional Negligence & Solicitor's Fees Dispute

In Tan & Au LLP v Goh Teh Lee, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by Tan & Au LLP against their former client, Goh Teh Lee, for $27,203.66 in unpaid legal fees and disbursements. Goh counterclaimed for $200,000, alleging professional negligence by the firm, particularly Ms. Tan, in advising him on objecting to a collective sale. Goh argued the firm failed to advise him on his lack of locus standi as a joint tenant. The court found in favor of Tan & Au LLP, dismissing Goh's counterclaim and awarding the firm $23,703.66 in fees and costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Solicitors Tan & Au LLP sued Goh Teh Lee for unpaid fees. Goh counterclaimed for negligence, alleging improper advice on a collective sale. The court ruled for the Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan & Au LLPPlaintiffLimited Liability PartnershipJudgment for PlaintiffWonChristopher Anand Daniel, Ganga Avadiar
Goh Teh LeeDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Ganga AvadiarAdvocatus Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Goh and his ex-wife were co-owners of a property under a joint tenancy.
  2. The property was part of a development undergoing a collective sale.
  3. Mr. Goh opposed the collective sale, while his ex-wife agreed to it.
  4. Tan & Au LLP represented Mr. Goh in objecting to the sale.
  5. The Strata Titles Board approved the collective sale.
  6. Mr. Goh appealed the decision, but his appeal was dismissed.
  7. The Court of Appeal ruled that all co-owners must act together to oppose a collective sale.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan & Au LLP v Goh Teh Lee, Suit No 606 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 130
  2. Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and others, , [2010] 1 SLR 1041
  3. Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and others, , [2010] 3 SLR 364
  4. Lim Li Pheng Maria and Others v Goh Teh Lee, , [2009] SGSTB 2

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Goh approached Tan & Au LLP for legal advice.
The sale committee applied to the Strata Titles Board for an order allowing them to proceed with the sale.
Tan & Au LLP, acting for Mr. Goh, filed written objections to the collective sale before the Strata Titles Board.
First mediation session held.
Offer of $200,000 above the original price for the unit was conveyed to Tan & Au LLP.
Tan & Au LLP rendered an invoice to Mr. Goh.
Hearing of Mr. Goh’s objections before the tribunal.
Tan & Au LLP filed an originating summons (OS 1627 of 2008) in the High Court for the setting aside of the order made by the Board.
Tan & Au LLP informed Mr. Goh that if he failed to pay its outstanding bills, it would have no choice but to discharge itself from further conduct of the matter.
Mr. Goh filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person in OS 1627.
Tan & Au LLP rendered an invoice to Mr. Goh.
Tan & Au LLP commenced action against Mr. Goh in the Subordinate Courts.
Hearing of OS 1627 before Andrew Ang J.
Hearing of OS 1627 before Andrew Ang J.
Andrew Ang J provided his written grounds dismissing Mr. Goh’s appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s written grounds for dismissing Mr. Goh’s appeal were released.
Action was transferred to the High Court.
Mr. Goh’s counterclaim has been against the firm as the first defendant and against Ms. Tan as the second defendant.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Professional Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the firm did not act negligently in failing to advise Mr. Goh that he lacked locus standi and that their advice on the merits of the case was not negligent.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to advise on locus standi
      • Negligent advice on merits of case
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 3 SLR 364
      • [2010] 4 SLR 534
  2. Locus Standi
    • Outcome: The court determined that Mr. Goh, as a joint tenant, lacked locus standi to object to the collective sale unilaterally.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Joint tenants acting together
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 3 SLR 364
  3. Solicitor's Standard of Care
    • Outcome: The court applied the standard of care of a reasonably competent solicitor and found that the firm met this standard.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonably competent solicitor
      • Duty to assess merits of case
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 4 SLR 534
      • [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1004

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Indemnity

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Professional Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1041SingaporeSets out the background facts of the collective sale dispute and the history of the development.
Goh Teh Lee v Lim Li Pheng Maria and othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 364SingaporeDetermined that all co-owners must act together to oppose a collective sale, establishing Mr. Goh's lack of locus standi.
Zhou Tong and others v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2010] 4 SLR 534SingaporeReiterates the standard of care and skill required of solicitors in the conduct of professional business.
Wai Wing Properties Pte Ltd v Lim, Ganesh & Liu (a firm)High CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 1004SingaporeClarifies that a solicitor cannot escape liability by merely labeling a mistake as an error of judgment; the court must determine if the error arose from negligence.
PlanAssure PAC (formerly known as Patrick Lee PAC) v Gaelic Inns Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 513SingaporeStates that the court should refrain from assessing the situation with the benefit of hindsight, and should instead place itself in the shoes of a reasonably skilled auditor at the time the audit was conducted.
Moy v Pettmann SmithUnknownYes[2005] 1 WLR 581England and WalesReaffirms the standard of care for advocates, requiring a showing that the error was one which no reasonably competent member of the relevant profession would have made.
Arthur JS Hall & Company v SimonsHouse of LordsYes[2002] 1 AC 615United KingdomSets out the standard of care to be applied in negligence actions against an advocate.
Ridehalgh v HorsefieldCourt of AppealYes[1994] Ch 205England and WalesInvolved a claim against solicitors’ negligent conduct and for wasted costs, by reason of the solicitors’ erroneous interpretation of a certain land law statute.
Edwards v BairstowHouse of LordsYes[1956] AC 14United KingdomStates that the Board's finding could not be impugned if no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal.
Dynamic Investments Pte Ltd v Lee Chee Kian SilasHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 729SingaporeStates that whether a transaction was lacking in good faith was something on which the Board had to be 'satisfied'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) s 84ESingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Collective Sale
  • Locus Standi
  • Joint Tenancy
  • Professional Negligence
  • Strata Titles Board
  • Notional Share Value
  • En Bloc Sale

15.2 Keywords

  • Collective Sale
  • Professional Negligence
  • Locus Standi
  • Solicitor's Fees
  • Strata Titles
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Collective Sale
  • Professional Negligence
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Professional Negligence
  • Civil Procedure
  • Land Law
  • Strata Titles Law