Kosui Singapore v Thangavelu: Taxation of Solicitor's Bills under Legal Profession Act

Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd applied to the High Court of Singapore to refer eight bills from its solicitor, Thangavelu, to taxation under the Legal Profession Act. The application was dismissed by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy on 28 August 2015, as the applicant failed to prove special circumstances justifying the late application and after payment of the bills. The court found that the applicant's true motivation was to seek sanctions against the respondent, rather than to genuinely dispute the fees.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to tax solicitor's bills dismissed due to lack of special circumstances. The court found the applicant failed to justify the delay.

1.7 Decision Date

27 August 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Doreen Chia of Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP Jonathan Yuen of Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP
Thangavelu	Respondent	Individual	Application Dismissed	Won	N. Sreenivasan SC of Straits Law Practice LLC Palaniappan Sundararaj of Straits Law Practice LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Doreen Chia	Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP
Jonathan Yuen	Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP
N. Sreenivasan SC	Straits Law Practice LLC
Palaniappan Sundararaj	Straits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd engaged Wong Thomas & Leong (WTL) and later Advocates Legal Chambers LLP (ALC) for litigation.
Disputes arose regarding the quantum of fees charged by ALC, particularly the apportionment between the respondent and Mr. Wong.
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Law Society, which was later withdrawn.
The applicant commenced proceedings to refer ALC's bills to taxation after 12 months from delivery and after payment.
The applicant accepted that the total professional fees of $715,580 which it has paid on ALC’s bills is, taken as a whole, a reasonable amount for the work covered by those bills.

5. Formal Citations

Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu, Originating Summons No 745 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 221

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-01	Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd awarded a sub-contract to construct attractions at Universal Studios Singapore.
2010-03-01	Disputes arose between Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd and the main contractor.
2010-03-01	Mr. Ito met Mr. Wong and the respondent and agreed to engage WTL to represent the applicant in litigation.
2010-05-04	Suit 312 of 2010 commenced on behalf of Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd.
2010-09-01	Fruitless mediation of the dispute underlying Suit 312.
2010-09-01	Respondent left WTL to join ALC.
2010-11-18	ALC filed its notice of change of solicitors in Suit 312.
2011-10-31	Judgment entered in favor of Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd in Suit 312.
2011-11-25	Defendants in Suit 312 filed an appeal.
2012-02-02	Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd asked the respondent to confirm the applicant’s calculation that $24,204.59 was left of its deposits.
2012-03-15	The respondent took the position that there was nothing left of the applicant’s deposits because of certain unpaid disbursements.
2012-03-20	Mr. Ito and the respondent met to reconcile the figures.
2012-04-03	The respondent informed Mr. Ito that the applicant owed ALC a further $60,123.50.
2012-07-11	The respondent sent copies to the applicant of all the bills which ALC had rendered to the applicant and, for the first time, all of the bills which WTL had rendered to ALC.
2012-07-13	The respondent offered to reimburse $129,000 to the applicant in order to settle their dispute.
2012-07-23	Appeal dismissed with costs.
2012-10-09	Mr. Ito met the respondent and Mr. Wong.
2012-10-12	The applicant received a letter from Straits Law Practice LLC.
2012-11-15	The applicant lodged a complaint against the respondent with the Law Society.
2012-11-20	The Law Society pointed out to the applicant that s 85(1) was directed towards punishing a solicitor for professional misconduct by imposing professional sanctions on him.
2012-12-11	The applicant replied to the Law Society’s letter.
2012-12-13	The Law Society responded to the applicant.
2012-12-19	The applicant informed the Law Society that that complaint was based on the respondent’s breach of the following two standards: (i) his failure to provide diligent legal services and (ii) his failure to ensure as a lawyer that he was competent to represent his client.
2013-01-21	The Law Society notified the applicant of this decision on 21 January 2013.
2013-03-01	An Inquiry Committee was constituted.
2013-08-15	Inquiry Committee convened a hearing.
2013-10-23	Inquiry Committee’s report found that the applicant had failed to make out a prima facie case of dishonesty.
2013-11-15	The Law Society informed the applicant by letter on 15 November 2013 of the Council’s decision and that no further action would accordingly be taken on the applicant’s s 85(1) complaint.
2013-11-19	The Law Society informed the applicant that, if the applicant wished the Law Society to investigate its s 75B complaint, it was not sufficient simply to refer the Law Society to the 169 pages of material it had submitted in support of the s 85(1) complaint as the applicant had done.
2013-12-01	The applicant forwarded to the Law Society a file of documents stating, particularising and supporting its s 75B complaint.
2014-01-01	The applicant forwarded to the Law Society a file of documents stating, particularising and supporting its s 75B complaint.
2014-01-14	The Law Society informed the applicant that its s 75B complaint would be referred to the Council at its meeting in February 2014.
2014-02-17	The Council of the Law Society considered and dismissed the applicant’s s 75B complaint.
2014-08-01	The applicant commenced these proceedings against the respondent.
2015-08-28	Application dismissed with costs.
2015-10-05	Appeal to this decision was struck out by the Court of Appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Taxation of Solicitor's Bills
- Outcome: The court held that the applicant failed to prove special circumstances justifying the taxation of the solicitor's bills out of time and after payment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Special circumstances for taxation after 12 months
  - Special circumstances for taxation after payment of bill
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] 1 WLR 510
  - [1979-1980] SLR(R) 603
  - [1891] 2 Ch 289
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 206
  - [2010] 4 SLR 590
  - [2011] 4 SLR 1184

8. Remedies Sought

Order to refer solicitor's bills to taxation

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Taxation of Solicitor's Bills

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] SGCA 3	Singapore	Editorial note indicating the appeal to the decision was struck out.
Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v Gwillim	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 WLR 510	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that taxation is the client's only protection against overcharging and the only judicial process to assess reasonable solicitor fees.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 900	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that members of every profession subscribe to a self-imposed ethical limit on the fees which they can charge their clients.
Wee Harry Lee v Haw Par Brother International Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1979-1980] SLR(R) 603	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has inherent jurisdiction to assess the reasonable value of legal services.
Re Cheeseman	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1891] 2 Ch 289	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there is no rigid rule as to what kind of circumstances are sufficiently special to justify taxation of a solicitor’s bill.
Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen	High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 206	Singapore	Cited as an example of circumstances which have been found to be sufficiently special on the facts of specific decided cases.
Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corporation and another	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 590	Singapore	Cited as an example of circumstances which have been found to be sufficiently special on the facts of specific decided cases.
In re Hirst & Capes	Kings Bench	Yes	[1908] 1 KB 982	England and Wales	Cited for the principle of duress, pressure or fraud by the solicitor.
Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 123	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of limitation statutes.
Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd	England and Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 WLR 2871	England and Wales	Cited for the purpose of limitation statutes.
Lowsley v Forbes	House of Lords	Yes	[1999] 1 AC 329	United Kingdom	Cited for the purpose of limitation statutes.
Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul	Court of Three Judges	Yes	[2011] 4 SLR 1184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Law Society should advise or require the aggrieved party to apply to court to have the bill of costs taxed in cases involving complaints of overcharging.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 120 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 122 of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Taxation
Special circumstances
Legal Profession Act
Solicitor's bills
Overcharging
Professional fees
Inadequate professional services
Dishonesty

15.2 Keywords

Taxation of costs
Solicitor's fees
Legal Profession Act
Special circumstances
Overcharging
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Assessment of Legal Costs	90
Legal Profession Act	90
Costs	70
Litigation	30

16. Subjects

Legal Fees
Professional Conduct
Civil Litigation