Riaz LLC v Sharil bin Abbas: Mental Capacity, Warrant to Act, and Solicitor's Costs

In Riaz LLC v Sharil bin Abbas, the High Court of Singapore dismissed an appeal by Riaz LLC, a firm of solicitors, seeking a review of the Assistant Registrar's decision to disallow their bill of costs. The court held that Sharil bin Abbas lacked the mental capacity to authorize Riaz LLC to act on his behalf in Suit 539 of 2009, rendering the warrant to act voidable. The court found that Riaz LLC had no authority to represent Sharil, and therefore, was not entitled to costs. The court dismissed the appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Solicitor's bill of costs disallowed due to client's lack of mental capacity to authorize the warrant to act. The court dismissed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Riaz LLCApplicantCorporationAppeal DismissedLostAdrian Wong, Alywin Goh
Sharil bin Abbas (through his deputy and litigation representative, Salbeah bte Paye)RespondentIndividualSuccessful in resisting the appealWonAnthony Wee

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian WongRajah & Tann LLC
Alywin GohRajah & Tann LLC
Anthony WeeLee Shergill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Sharil bin Abbas suffered brain damage in a road traffic accident.
  2. Riaz LLC offered to act for Sharil while he was in the hospital.
  3. Sharil and his mother, Salbeah, met with Mr. Riaz twice after Sharil's discharge.
  4. A warrant to act was executed with Sharil's thumbprint and Salbeah's signature.
  5. Salbeah was not appointed as Sharil's litigation representative at the time of signing.
  6. Suit 539 was filed on 22 June 2009.
  7. Salbeah engaged Shergill in June 2010 and was appointed Sharil’s litigation representative on 11 November 2010.
  8. The writ in S 539 was amended to reflect Salbeah's appointment as litigation representative.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Riaz LLC v Sharil bin Abbas (through his deputy and litigation representative, Salbeah bte Paye), Bill of Costs No 193 of 2012 (Summons No 3323 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 167

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Road traffic accident involving Sharil bin Abbas
Suit 539 filed by Riaz LLC on behalf of Sharil bin Abbas
Lee Shergill LLP took over conduct of Suit 539
Salbeah bte Paye appointed Sharil’s litigation representative
Riaz sent Salbeah a list of disbursements and costs
Riaz sent Salbeah a list of disbursements and costs
Salbeah filed an affidavit
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Warrant to Act
    • Outcome: The court found that Sharil did not have the mental capacity to endorse the Warrant to Act, rendering it invalid.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mental capacity to endorse warrant
      • Authority of solicitor to represent client
  2. Entitlement to Costs
    • Outcome: The court held that the solicitor was not entitled to costs because the client lacked the mental capacity to authorize representation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Quantum meruit
      • Settlement agreement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Review of Assistant Registrar's decision
  2. Payment of bill of costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Recovery of Legal Costs

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Solicitor's Costs

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Foo Song Mee v Ho Kiau SengSingapore Court of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 45SingaporeCited for the principle that a quantum meruit is payable for work done under what purported to be a binding contract but was not so in fact.
Tung Hui Mannequin Industries v Tenet Insurance Co. Ltd. & OrsUnknownYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 184SingaporeCited for the principle that the absence of a warrant to act is prima facie evidence that no such authority exists and an action commenced without such authority is liable to be struck out.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 54 r 7 of the Rules of Court
O 59 r 28 of the Rules of Court
O 59 r 29 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, Rev Ed 2009)Singapore
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, Rev Ed 2010)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Warrant to Act
  • Mental Capacity
  • Litigation Representative
  • Bill of Costs
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Quantum Meruit

15.2 Keywords

  • Mental Capacity
  • Warrant to Act
  • Solicitor
  • Costs
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Costs
  • Mental Capacity

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Costs
  • Mental Capacity Law