Wan Hoe Keet v LVM Law Chambers LLC: Conflict of Interest and Injunction in Legal Representation

In Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally v LVM Law Chambers LLC, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally to enjoin LVM Law Chambers LLC from representing Chan Pik Sun in Suit 806, arguing a conflict of interest due to LVM's prior representation of Lee Hwee Yeow in a similar suit (Suit 315) involving the applicants. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, found that LVM's prior involvement in settlement negotiations with the applicants created an equitable duty of confidence, and the potential misuse of confidential information warranted an injunction. The court allowed the application and granted the injunction sought.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed and injunction granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court granted an injunction to prevent LVM Law Chambers from representing a plaintiff due to a conflict of interest arising from prior confidential settlement negotiations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wan Hoe KeetApplicant, DefendantIndividualApplication allowedWonWong Soon Peng Adrian, Ng Tee Tze, Allen and Ang Leong Hao
Ho SallyApplicant, DefendantIndividualApplication allowedWonWong Soon Peng Adrian, Ng Tee Tze, Allen and Ang Leong Hao
LVM Law Chambers LLCRespondentCorporationInjunction grantedLostLok Vi Ming, Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Tang Jin Sheng, Tan Qin Lei
Lee Hwee YeowPlaintiffIndividualSettledSettled
Chan Pik SunPlaintiffIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Soon Peng AdrianRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ng Tee TzeRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Allen and Ang Leong HaoRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lok Vi MingLVM Law Chambers LLC
Lee Sien Liang JosephLVM Law Chambers LLC
Tang Jin ShengLVM Law Chambers LLC
Tan Qin LeiLVM Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. Lee Hwee Yeow sued Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally in Suit 315 for losses from multilevel marketing ventures.
  2. LVM Law Chambers LLC represented Lee Hwee Yeow in Suit 315.
  3. Suit 315 was settled through negotiations on 20 October 2017.
  4. Chan Pik Sun sued Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally in Suit 806, also alleging misrepresentation in a multilevel marketing scheme.
  5. LVM Law Chambers LLC also represented Chan Pik Sun in Suit 806.
  6. Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally applied to enjoin LVM from acting for Chan Pik Sun, citing conflict of interest.
  7. The applicants argued LVM possessed confidential information from the settlement of Suit 315.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wan Hoe Keet and another v LVM Law Chambers LLC, HC/Originating Summons No 13 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 103

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit No 315 filed by Lee Hwee Yeow against Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally.
Settlement reached in Suit 315 (the LHY Settlement).
Suit No 806 filed by Chan Pik Sun against Wan Hoe Keet and Ho Sally.
Applicants applied by originating summons to enjoin LVM from acting for CPS.
Judgment reserved.
LVM wrote to the court and made further submissions.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Conflict of Interest
    • Outcome: The court found that LVM Law Chambers LLC had a conflict of interest due to its prior representation of Lee Hwee Yeow and the confidential information obtained during settlement negotiations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misuse of confidential information
      • Breach of equitable duty of confidence
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] NSWCA 354
      • [2001] 3 NZLR 343
      • [2014] 2 SLR 1045
  2. Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted an injunction to prevent LVM Law Chambers LLC from representing Chan Pik Sun.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Threat of misuse of confidential information
      • Disadvantage to former client
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] NSWCA 354

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty LtdNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2009] NSWCA 354AustraliaCited as a case with similar facts where an injunction was granted to prevent a law firm from acting against a former client due to conflict of interest and potential misuse of confidential information obtained during settlement negotiations.
Carter Holt Harvey Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging LtdNew Zealand Court of AppealYes[2001] 3 NZLR 343New ZealandCited for the principle that it is difficult to keep settlement negotiations quarantined from the conduct of proceedings generally.
Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and anotherHigh Court of SingaporeYes[2014] 2 SLR 1045SingaporeCited for the principle that an obligation of confidence may arise in equity based on principles of good faith and conscience, even without an explicit contractual duty.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Conflict of interest
  • Injunction
  • Confidential information
  • Settlement negotiations
  • Equitable duty of confidence
  • Multilevel marketing scheme
  • Ponzi scheme

15.2 Keywords

  • conflict of interest
  • injunction
  • legal representation
  • settlement
  • confidentiality

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Legal Ethics

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Injunctions
  • Legal Ethics
  • Conflict of Interest