Chiam Heng Hsien v WongPartnership LLP: Striking Out Claim for Alleged Negligence in Property Tenancy Dispute
Chiam Heng Hsien and Mitre Hotel (Proprietors) appealed against the decision to strike out their claim against WongPartnership LLP in the High Court of Singapore on September 8, 2015. The plaintiffs alleged that WongPartnership, their former legal representatives, negligently gave up their tenancy rights to a property, causing them significant financial loss. Chua Lee Ming JC dismissed the appeal, finding the claim to be frivolous, vexatious, an abuse of process, and time-barred.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against striking out claim for WongPartnership's alleged negligence in property tenancy dispute. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim frivolous and time-barred.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHIAM HENG HSIEN | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| MITRE HOTEL (PROPRIETORS) | Appellant, Plaintiff | Partnership | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| WONGPARTNERSHIP LLP | Respondent, Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Claim Struck Out | Won | Chelva Retnam Rajah, Ang Shunli Alanna Sugene Uy |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chua Lee Ming | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chelva Retnam Rajah | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ang Shunli Alanna Sugene Uy | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- WongPartnership LLP represented Chiam Heng Hsien and Mitre Hotel (Proprietors) in prior court proceedings.
- The prior proceedings concerned a property at 145 Killiney Road and the Mitre Hotel.
- Chiam Heng Hsien owned a 10% share of the property.
- Mitre Hotel (Proprietors) was a partnership formed to run the Mitre Hotel.
- Chiam Heng Hsien claimed WongPartnership gave up the tenancy in submissions against his specific instructions.
- The High Court previously held that the tenancy had been validly terminated and ordered a sale of the property with vacant possession.
- Chiam Heng Hsien lodged a complaint with the Law Society against the lawyers from WongPartnership, which was dismissed.
5. Formal Citations
- Chiam Heng Hsien and another v WongPartnership LLP, Suit No 312 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeal No 194 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 233
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons No 582 of 1996 filed | |
| Control of Rent Act abolished | |
| Originating Summons Nos 830 and 1918 of 2006 filed | |
| Civil Appeals Nos 54, 116, 117 and 128 of 2007 filed | |
| Alleged date WongPartnership gave up tenancy in oral submissions | |
| Prakash J gave decision in the 2006 Proceedings | |
| Judgment issued | |
| Appeal against Prakash J’s decision dismissed by Court of Appeal | |
| Chiam Heng Hsien lodged complaint with the Law Society | |
| Originating Summons No 275 of 2010 filed | |
| Originating Summons No 386 of 2012 filed | |
| Present action filed | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the claim for breach of contract was unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the claim for negligence was unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs' action was an abuse of the process of the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Declaration that WongPartnership was not entitled to its costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiam Heng Luan and Another v Chiam Heng Hsien and Others | High Court | Yes | [1997] SGHC 238 | Singapore | Cited for background information regarding prior unsuccessful application to compel CHH to deliver up possession of the Property. |
| Chiam Heng Luan and others v Chiam Heng Hsien and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 305 | Singapore | Cited as the Judgment in the 2006 Proceedings where Prakash J held that the tenancy had been validly terminated and ordered a sale of the Property with vacant possession. |
| Chiam Heng Hsien and another v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 24 | Singapore | Cited to show that CHH's complaint to the Law Society against the lawyers from WP was dismissed, and the court upheld the findings of the Inquiry Committee. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Control of Rent Act (Cap 58, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Control of Rent (Abolition) Act 2001 (Act 14 of 2001) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Tenancy
- Vacant Possession
- Striking Out
- Limitation Period
- Abuse of Process
- Solicitor and Client Costs
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- law firm
- tenancy
- property
- striking out
- limitation
- abuse of process
16. Subjects
- Legal Malpractice
- Civil Litigation
- Property Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Legal Malpractice
- Property Law
- Tenancy Law