JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp: Negligence, Breach of Duty, and Contract Breach
In JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another, the High Court of Singapore heard a case where JWR Pte Ltd, controlled by Dr. Chen Walter Roland, sued Edmond Pereira Law Corporation and Edmond Avethas Pereira for negligence and breach of contract related to advice and proceedings in a prior dispute. JWR Pte Ltd alleged the defendants failed to exercise due care and skill. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed JWR Pte Ltd's claim, finding that the defendants had not breached their duty of care or the terms of their retainer. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove it had suffered any loss.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
JWR Pte Ltd sued Edmond Pereira Law Corp for negligent advice and conduct in prior legal proceedings. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty or contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JWR Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Syn Kok Kay |
| Edmond Pereira Law Corporation | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Christopher Anand Daniel, Harjean Kaur, J Jayaletchmi |
| Edmond Avethas Pereira | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Christopher Anand Daniel, Harjean Kaur, J Jayaletchmi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Syn Kok Kay | Patrick Chin, Syn & Co |
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Harjean Kaur | Advocatus Law LLP |
| J Jayaletchmi | Advocatus Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff engaged defendants for legal advice and representation in a dispute with third parties.
- Plaintiff alleged defendants were negligent in advising on and conducting proceedings in Suit 896/2012.
- Suit 896/2012 was struck out due to insufficient evidence to support the plaintiff's claim.
- Plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to advise on the possibility of reinstating struck-off companies.
- Plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to properly conduct Suit 896/2012.
- The court found the defendants acted in accordance with the plaintiff's instructions.
- The court found the plaintiff failed to prove it suffered any loss as a result of the defendants' alleged negligence.
5. Formal Citations
- JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another, Suit No 992 of 2015, [2019] SGHC 266
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff entered into an agreement with IRS to be the sole distributor of Immunotec Products in Singapore. | |
| Plaintiff entered into a new agreement with UYI to be the sole distributor of Immunotec Products in Singapore. | |
| UYI sent a notice of termination purporting to terminate the distributorship agreement with the plaintiff. | |
| Dr Chen met with the second defendant to commence legal proceedings against Lee and UYI. | |
| Defendants advised the plaintiff that proceedings against UYI would not be easy and that the claim against Lee was unlikely to succeed. | |
| Defendants sent a follow-up letter of advice stating that UYI and IRS had both been struck off. | |
| Defendants commenced Suit 896 of 2012 against Lee for misrepresentation and breach of contract. | |
| Suit 896/2012 was struck out on Lee’s application. | |
| Plaintiff alleged that the defendants had been negligent in advising it on its claim against Lee, UYI and IRS. | |
| Plaintiff sent a letter to the defendants reiterating its stance and threatening to lodge a complaint with the Law Society. | |
| Plaintiff proposed mediation of its dispute with the defendants. | |
| Plaintiff commenced the present action. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants were not negligent in their advice or conduct of the prior legal proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise due care and skill
- Failure to provide competent representation
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 761
- [2016] 2 SLR 928
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants did not breach the terms of their retainer with the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of implied term of retainer
- Failure to exercise due care, skill and diligence
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 193
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Refund of Legal Fees
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Professional Negligence
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 761 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of care expected of a solicitor, which is that of a reasonably competent and diligent solicitor and not one of a guarantee of success. |
| Nava Bharat (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Straits Law Practice LLC and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 928 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining whether there is a breach of the duty of care, there has to be some specificity as to what should have been advised on by the defendants. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the test to imply a term in a contract. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the framework for establishing a duty of care in negligence. |
| Lee Hung Pin v Lim Bee Lian | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discretion conferred on the court in section 343(1) of the Companies Act was to be exercised carefully and judicially. |
| Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the standard of proof in a claim under section 340 of the Companies Act remains that of a balance of probabilities. |
| M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Leow Tet Sin | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 271 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of section 340 of the Companies Act. |
| Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corp | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for damages to be recoverable, it must be shown that there was a substantial chance of success in the cause of action pursued. |
| Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 1602 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that for damages to be recoverable, it must be shown that there was a substantial chance of success in the cause of action pursued. |
| Hatswell v Goldbergs (a firm) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] EWCA Civ 2084 | England and Wales | Cited for the two-step test in determining the quantum of damage recoverable in a claim against negligent solicitors. |
| Paul Davidson Taylor (a firm) v White | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 1511 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that there is no basis to deny the defendants of their fees if they complied with the plaintiff’s instructions and did not breach their duty of care. |
| Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a director is personally liable for his own torts committed in relation to the company’s affairs. |
| Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 274 | Singapore | Cited for the factors a court should take into account in considering whether it is appropriate to make an exceptional award of indemnity costs. |
| Three Rivers District Council v The Governor and Co of the Bank of England (No 6 ) | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2006] EWHC 816 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the factors a court should take into account in considering whether it is appropriate to make an exceptional award of indemnity costs. |
| Asia Hotel Investments Ltd v Starwood Asia Pacific Management Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 661 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for damages to be recoverable, it must be shown that there was a substantial chance of success in the cause of action pursued. |
| Liquidator of Leong Seng Hin Piling Pte Ltd v Chan Ah Lek | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 77 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a claim under section 340 of the Companies Act, the business of the company must be carried on to defraud. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Order 18 rule 19(b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
| Order 64 rule 7 (1) of the Rules of Court |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 1998 (S 156/1998) |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2010 (Cap 161, R1, 2010 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 343 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 340 of the Companies Act | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Duty of Care
- Standard of Care
- Limitation Period
- Striking Out
- Piercing the Corporate Veil
- Reinstatement of Company
- Fraudulent Trading
- Contingent Creditor
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- breach of contract
- legal advice
- solicitor
- duty of care
- companies act
- striking out
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Professional Negligence
- Legal Malpractice
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Contract Law