Tommy Choo v Kuntjoro Wibawa: Taxation of Costs Dispute over Legal Fees and Oral Agreement

In Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa, the High Court of Singapore addressed disputes over legal fees in Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013, Originating Summons No 204 of 2014, and Bill of Costs No 173 of 2014. Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners (TCMGP) sought a review of taxation orders related to fees owed by Kuntjoro Wibawa for legal services. Wibawa contested the fees, claiming an oral agreement superseded a written warrant to act. The court dismissed Wibawa's claim regarding the oral agreement, reviewed the Assistant Registrar's taxation orders, and adjusted the costs. Additionally, the court addressed a dispute between TCMGP and Veritas Law Corporation (VLC) over legal fees. The court dismissed TCMGP’s application and allowed Mr. Wibawa’s application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Mr. Wibawa's application in SUM 3318 is allowed and TCMGP’s application in SUM 3317 is dismissed. The costs in BC 173/2013 are taxed as follows: (a) Section 1: $50,000; (b) Section 2: $3,000; and (c) Section 3: $206,000. The application in SUM 5186 is allowed and tax the costs as follows: (a) Section 1: $5,000; (b) Section 2: $1,400; (c) Section 3: $2,069.80 as agreed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over legal fees between Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners and Kuntjoro Wibawa regarding an alleged oral agreement. The court reviews taxation orders and dismisses Wibawa's claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tommy Choo Mark Go & PartnersApplicant, RespondentPartnershipApplication DismissedLost
Singa Retnam of instructed counsel
Kuntjoro Wibawa @ Wong Kin TjongRespondent, DefendantIndividualApplication AllowedWon
Veritas Law CorporationOtherCorporationPartialPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ling Leong HuiTommy Choo Mark Go & Partners
Singa Retnaminstructed counsel
Ooi Oon TatJudy Cheng & Co
Bachoo Mohan SinghBachoo Mohan Singh Law Practice

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Kuntjoro Wibawa engaged TCMGP in July 2011 to act for him in a matter concerning his father’s estate and discretionary trusts in Jersey.
  2. Mr. Ling Leong Hui from TCMGP instructed Mr. Bachoo Mohan Singh as counsel due to unfamiliarity with trust law.
  3. In August 2011, Mr. Wibawa signed a warrant to act, setting out TCMGP and Mr. Singh’s charging rates.
  4. Suit 650 of 2011 was commenced on behalf of Mr. Wibawa on 21 September 2011.
  5. Mr. Wibawa discharged TCMGP and Mr. Singh on 3 June 2013.
  6. Mr. Wibawa resisted taxation, asserting an oral agreement superseded the warrant to act.
  7. Mr. Wibawa claimed the oral agreement was to pay Mr. Singh $5,000 (later $10,000) monthly.
  8. TCMGP applied for an order to draw up a bill of costs and for the bill to be taxed on an indemnity basis.
  9. Mr. Wibawa filed OS 204 for a declaration that the warrant to act was void and that he had already paid all legal fees.
  10. VLC represented TCMGP in OS 204, with Mr. Singh acting as its counsel, but later discharged itself.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters, , [2015] SGHC 239

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Kuntjoro Wibawa engaged the services of TCMGP.
Mr. Wibawa signed a warrant to act, which authorised TCMGP to act on his behalf.
TCMGP commenced Suit 650 of 2011 on behalf of Mr. Wibawa.
Mr. Singh spent about seven days in Jersey to assist Mr. Wibawa in the applications.
Mediation session at the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Mediation session at the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Mr. Wibawa discharged TCMGP and Mr. Singh.
Andrew Ang J ordered that the bill of costs be taxed.
TCMGP commenced Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013.
Mr. Wibawa filed Originating Summons No 204 of 2014.
The AR gave her decision on 173/2013.
VLC discharged itself from acting in OS 204.
A bill of costs for taxation was filed on 4 September 2014.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Oral Agreement
    • Outcome: The court was not satisfied that Mr. Wibawa proved the existence of an oral agreement on the balance of probabilities and dismissed his application.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Taxation of Legal Costs
    • Outcome: The court reviewed the Assistant Registrar's taxation orders, adjusting the costs awarded in sections 1 and 3 of BC 173/2013 and section 1 of BC 173/2014.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 3 SLR 1052

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that warrant to act is void
  2. Review of taxation order
  3. Taxation of costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Recovery of Legal Fees

10. Practice Areas

  • Taxation of Costs
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa @ Wong Kin TjongHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 79SingaporeThe court referred to its earlier judgment in this case regarding the resumption of proceedings in BC 173/2013.
Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock PeterN/AYes[2011] 3 SLR 1052SingaporeCited regarding the principle of proportionality in taxation of costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Warrant to act
  • Bill of costs
  • Taxation
  • Oral agreement
  • Interlocutory applications
  • Charging rates
  • Indemnity basis
  • Solicitor-client relationship
  • Legal fees
  • Disbursements

15.2 Keywords

  • legal fees
  • taxation of costs
  • oral agreement
  • warrant to act
  • Singapore
  • TCMGP
  • Kuntjoro Wibawa

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Assessment of Legal Costs95
Costs90
Legal Profession Act70
Contract Law50
Duty of Candour30
Solicitor-client relationship25

16. Subjects

  • Legal Fee Dispute
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Contract Law