H&C S Holdings v Gabriel Law: Legal Profession, Remuneration & Bill of Costs

In H&C S Holdings Pte Ltd v Gabriel Law Corporation, the Singapore High Court addressed whether six invoices issued by Gabriel Law Corporation to H&C S Holdings Pte Ltd were proper bills under Section 122 of the Legal Profession Act. H&C S Holdings sought a declaration that the invoices were not proper bills or, alternatively, an order for taxation. The court granted leave for taxation of Invoice 39 and Invoice 86, and ordered Gabriel Law Corporation to pay the costs of the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Leave granted to the Client to have Invoice 39 for S$107,809.47 and Invoice 86 for S$321,000 taxed. The Firm is to pay the Client the costs of this application.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on whether invoices issued by Gabriel Law Corp to H&C S Holdings are proper bills under Legal Profession Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
H&C S HOLDINGS PTE LTDPlaintiffCorporationPartial WinPartialVellayappan Balasubramaniyam, Davis Tan
GABRIEL LAW COPORATIONDefendantCorporationPartial LossPartialPeter Gabriel, Manoj Nandwani Prakash, Charmaine Jin Jing Xian, Lee Mei Zhen

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
George Wei JJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vellayappan BalasubramaniyamRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Davis TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Peter GabrielGabriel Law Corporation
Manoj Nandwani PrakashGabriel Law Corporation
Charmaine Jin Jing XianGabriel Law Corporation
Lee Mei ZhenGabriel Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Client engaged the Firm to enforce an arbitral award in Singapore and the United Kingdom.
  2. The Firm issued six invoices to the Client for work done in connection with the enforcement proceedings.
  3. The Client disputed the invoices, claiming they were not proper bills under the Legal Profession Act.
  4. The Client sought a declaration that it was not liable to pay the invoices or, alternatively, an order for taxation.
  5. The Firm argued that the invoices were proper bills and that there were no special circumstances justifying taxation.
  6. The Client had already paid some of the invoices, and the Firm had deducted amounts from the Client's funds to satisfy others.
  7. There was a dispute over whether the Client had consented to the deductions made by the Firm.

5. Formal Citations

  1. H&C S Holdings Pte Ltd v Gabriel Law Corp, Originating Summons No 931 of 2016, [2018] SGHC 168

6. Timeline

DateEvent
SIAC 123 commenced by the Client against Metalloyd
Award for SIAC 123 rendered in favor of the Client
Client engaged the Firm to enforce the 123 Award in Singapore and the United Kingdom
Firm sent the Client an email confirming that the Client will pay a deposit of S$50,000
Client deposited S$50,000 in the Firm’s client account
Metalloyd took out Originating Summons 304 of 2014 in the Singapore Courts to set aside the 123 Award
Client took out Summons 1942 of 2014 in OS 304/2014 seeking leave to enforce the 123 Award against Metalloyd in Singapore
Invoice 15 for S$54,113.20 was issued to the Client
Invoice 15 was paid by cheque
Firm issued Invoice 39 for S$107,809.47 to the Client
Invoice 39 was paid
Mr Gabriel requested for the $100,000 in an email
Invoice 46 for the payment of S$100,000.00 was dated
Client paid for Invoice 46 by a cheque
Firm issued Invoice 54 for the payment of S$107,535.00
Remaining S$62,905.79 under Invoice 54 was fully satisfied by way of a cheque
Firm received a sum of US$2,342,920.92 from Metalloyd in satisfaction of the 123 Award
Firm retained US$210,649.90 out of the US$2,342,920.92 received from Metalloyd and remitted the remainder to the Client
Firm issued Invoice 86 for S$321,000.00
Firm issued Invoice number 97 for work done in relation to the Mount Eastern Matter
Firm took out OS 216/2016 for Invoice number 97 to be taxed
Client engaged its present solicitors, Rajah and Tann, to begin looking into its past financial transactions with the Firm
R&T sought the return of the balance sum of US$172,670.56
R&T emailed the Firm seeking an itemised breakdown of the Firm’s charges for the Disputed Invoices and the 123 Award Enforcement Proceedings
Application, OS 931/2016, brought
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the invoices issued by the Firm are proper bills within the meaning of s 122 of the Legal Profession Act
    • Outcome: The court found that Invoice 39 and Invoice 86 were not proper bills and granted leave for them to be taxed.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Whether there are special circumstances justifying an order for taxation of the invoices
    • Outcome: The court found that special circumstances existed for Invoice 39 and Invoice 86, justifying an order for taxation.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the invoices are not proper bills
  2. Order for taxation of the invoices

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of contract
  • Professional negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong SenHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 206SingaporeCited for the principle that a dispute over the validity of a bill is different from an application for taxation and that the requirements in O 59 shed light on what solicitor-and-client bills, even if not drawn for taxation, should contain.
Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v GwillimEnglish Court of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 510England and WalesCited for the principles to be applied in deciding whether a proper bill had been presented.
Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corp and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 590SingaporeCited for the level of particularisation and itemisation required of a solicitor’s bill has been accepted by our courts in the context of s 122 of the LPA.
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v ThangaveluHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 722SingaporeCited for the level of particularisation and itemisation required of a solicitor’s bill has been accepted by our courts in the context of s 122 of the LPA and for the instances in which special circumstances justifying taxation were proven.
Wee Harry Lee v Haw Par Brothers International LtdCourt of AppealYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 603SingaporeCited as an example of special circumstances justifying taxation where there was prolonged negotiation over fees between solicitor and client after which the client applies for taxation.
In re Hirst & CapesKing's Bench DivisionYes[1908] 1 KB 982England and WalesCited as an example of special circumstances justifying taxation where there was duress, pressure or fraud by the solicitor.
Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim ChiongHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 123SingaporeCited for the purpose of a limitation period is intended to prevent stale claims, to relieve a potential defendant of the uncertainty of a potential claim against [him] and to remove the injustice of increasing difficulties of proof as time goes by.
Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 WLR 2871England and WalesCited for the purpose of a limitation period is intended to prevent stale claims, to relieve a potential defendant of the uncertainty of a potential claim against [him] and to remove the injustice of increasing difficulties of proof as time goes by.
Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan ArulCourt of Three JudgesYes[2011] 4 SLR 1184SingaporeCited for the principle that taxation provides the best means for an aggrieved client to determine what the proper fee is for the actual work done by his lawyer.
re G B B NormanQueen's Bench DivisionYes(1886) 16 QBD 673England and WalesCited for the principle that special circumstances justifying taxation were found because the bill of costs included a charge for shorthand notes of the proceedings at a reference where no professional shorthand writer had been employed.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa & OrsHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 189SingaporeCited for the word “disbursements” was wide enough to include loans or debts properly incurred by a party for the purposes of the litigation, provided that it is proven that these loans or debts are due and payable and would be paid after taxation.
Cook v GillardN/AYes(1852) 1 E & B 26N/ACited for the degree of itemization required of a bill of costs is a question of degree, but the general question is whether from the point of view of the client, the client is able to ascertain by perusing the bill what business was done for him and whether the charges were prima facie reasonable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 59 r 20 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Order 59 r 24 of the Rules of Court
Rule 17(5) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules (Cap 161, R 1, 2010 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)Singapore
Section 122 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 118(1) of the Legal Profession ActSingapore
Section 118(3) of the Legal Profession ActSingapore
Section 2 of the Legal Profession ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bill of costs
  • Taxation
  • Special circumstances
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Enforcement proceedings
  • Client account
  • Deposits
  • Disbursements
  • Invoices
  • Solicitor's fees

15.2 Keywords

  • Legal Profession Act
  • Bill of costs
  • Taxation
  • Solicitor
  • Client
  • Invoices
  • Special circumstances

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Costs
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Legal Profession
  • Remuneration
  • Bill of Costs
  • Civil Procedure