Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP: Setting Aside Statutory Demand & Validity of Service

Mr. Koh Kim Teck appealed the High Court's dismissal of his application to set aside a statutory demand served by Shook Lin & Bok LLP. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang, and Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory demand was validly served and that the appellant's grounds for setting it aside were without merit. The court held that advertising a notice of the statutory demand and emailing it to the appellant's solicitors constituted valid service. The court also found that the appellant's reasons for disputing the debt and claiming a cross-demand were unpersuasive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the dismissal of an application to set aside a statutory demand. The court considered the validity of service and the grounds for setting aside the demand.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Koh Kim TeckAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostDerek Kang Yu Hsien, Ashok Kumar Rai
Shook Lin & Bok LLPRespondentLimited Liability PartnershipAppeal UpheldWonJamal Siddique Peer, Leong Woon Ho, Liew Zhi Hao

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Derek Kang Yu HsienCairnhill Law LLC
Ashok Kumar RaiCairnhill Law LLC
Jamal Siddique PeerShook Lin & Bok LLP
Leong Woon HoShook Lin & Bok LLP
Liew Zhi HaoShook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

  1. The respondent, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, acted for the appellant, Mr. Koh Kim Teck, in two suits from May 2013 to January 2018.
  2. The respondent issued an invoice on 26 October 2017 for $269,066.57 for work done between 18 February 2017 and 31 July 2017.
  3. The appellant sought a 50% discount on the 26 October 2017 invoice.
  4. The respondent informed the appellant that he could apply to the court to have the invoice taxed if he disputed it.
  5. The respondent issued a statutory demand dated 30 September 2019 for $106,133.52, after setting off $176,025.30 from the original invoice amount.
  6. The respondent attempted personal service at the appellant's last known address and subsequently advertised a notice of the statutory demand in the Straits Times.
  7. The respondent also sent a copy of the notice to Cairnhill Law, the appellant's solicitors in ongoing taxation proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Civil Appeal No 25 of 2020, [2020] SGCA 118

6. Timeline

DateEvent
The respondent began acting for the appellant in the Consolidated Suits.
The 26 October 2017 invoice was issued for work done between 18 February 2017 to 31 July 2017.
The appellant sought a 50% discount on the 26 October 2017 invoice.
The respondent informed the appellant that if he disputed any part of the 26 October 2017 invoice, he could approach the court for taxation.
The respondent sent an email to the appellant seeking his confirmation that he wished to continue engaging the respondent.
The respondent sent another email seeking the appellant’s decision as to whether to continue the engagement.
The appellant responded confirming that he wished to continue engaging the respondent to act for him.
Optimus Chambers wrote to the respondent stating that it had been instructed to take over the Consolidated Suits.
The respondent wrote to Optimus Chambers enclosing the 26 October 2017 invoice and stating that it had not been paid.
The respondent handed over all documents relevant to the Consolidated Suits to Optimus Chambers.
The respondent delivered the 13 March 2018 invoice to the appellant through Optimus Chambers.
The respondent wrote to Optimus Chambers, enclosing the 26 October 2017 invoice and the 13 March 2018 invoice, informing Optimus Chambers that it would be setting off the unpaid invoices against the sums held on account for the appellant.
The respondent spoke to the appellant and informed him that if he disputed any of the invoices, he was entitled to apply for taxation.
The respondent wrote to Optimus Chambers informing the appellant of his entitlement to taxation.
The respondent sent a copy of all invoices rendered to the appellant to Optimus Chambers, including the two unpaid invoices.
The respondent wrote to Optimus Chambers enclosing a statutory demand dated 29 November 2018 issued on the basis of the 26 October 2017 invoice and enquired whether Optimus Chambers had instructions to accept service.
The appellant filed OS 67/19 for (a) an order for taxation in respect of 13 March 2018 invoice and (b) leave to seek an order for taxation in respect of the 26 October 2017 invoice.
Abdullah J dismissed OS 67/19 in so far as it related to the October invoice.
The respondent issued a fresh statutory demand for the 26 October 2017 invoice.
The respondent filed its bill of costs in BC 95 premised on the 13 March 2018 invoice.
The respondent attempted to serve the 10 May 2019 statutory demand by way of email to the appellant and his lawyers at LVM Law Chambers.
Cairnhill Law filed a notice of appointment to act for the appellant in BC 95.
Cairnhill Law wrote to the respondent to request breakdowns of the time spent under the March Bill in BC 95.
Title search on the Bayshore Road property showed the appellant was no longer the owner of the property, as he had been in March 2019.
The SD was issued and the respondent’s clerk attempted personal service of the SD on the appellant at the Bayshore Road property.
The respondent provided the appellant with proposed amendments to the March Bill, which was to include the breakdowns.
The respondent’s clerk again attempted personal service of the SD on the appellant at the Bayshore Road property.
The respondents attempted service of the SD by advertising a notice of the SD in the Straits Times. An email with a copy of the advertised notice of the SD was sent to Cairnhill Law on the same day.
Deadline for application to set aside SD.
The SD was sent to Cairnhill Law by email.
B 2786 was filed.
The appellant filed OSB 129.
OSB 129 was heard by the AR.
The March Bill was taxed.
The March Bill was taxed.
The March Bill was taxed.
The March Bill was taxed.
The appeal from OSB 129 was dismissed by the Judge.
Abdullah J dismissed the appellant’s application for review of taxation.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Service of Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court held that advertising a notice of the statutory demand and emailing it to the appellant's solicitors constituted valid service.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Substituted service
      • Advertisement of statutory demand
      • Service via email to solicitor
  2. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant's grounds for setting aside the statutory demand were without merit.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Disputed debt
      • Cross-demand exceeding debt
      • Implied term for breakdown of time costs
  3. Extension of Time to Apply to Set Aside Statutory Demand
    • Outcome: The court refused the appellant's application for an extension of time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasons for delay
      • Prejudice resulting from extension
  4. Challenge to Quantum of Solicitor's Fees
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellant was precluded from challenging the amount claimed in the statutory demand because he had not obtained an order for taxation within the prescribed time.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Taxation of solicitor's bill
      • Time limit for taxation
      • Common law right to defend

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Statutory Demand
  2. Extension of Time to Apply to Set Aside Statutory Demand

9. Cause of Actions

  • Debt Recovery
  • Breach of Contract (alleged)

10. Practice Areas

  • Bankruptcy Law
  • Debt Recovery
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLPHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 86SingaporeThe High Court decision that was appealed against in the current judgment.
Wong Kwei Cheong v ABN-AMRO Bank NVHigh CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 31SingaporeDiscusses the requirements for substituted service of a statutory demand, particularly regarding advertising in newspapers.
Re Ramaschayana Sulistyo (alias Chang Whe Ming), ex parte The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 483SingaporeCited for the principle that the requirements for valid service are circumscribed by pragmatism and not by an overtly rigid and technical approach.
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v ThangaveluHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 722SingaporeCited for the principle that taxation is the exclusive judicial recourse available to any challenge over the quantum of a solicitor's fees.
Liew Kai Lung Karl v Ching Chiat KwongHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 1204SingaporeCited for the principle that the threshold to grant an application for an extension of time for a debtor to apply to set aside a statutory demand is not a particularly high one.
Turner & Co (a firm) v O Paloma SACourt of AppealYes[2000] 1 WLR 37England and WalesCited by the appellant for the argument that failure to seek taxation within a specific timeframe does not preclude disputing the quantum of an invoice.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ishak bin IsmailHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 302SingaporeClarifies the decision in Wong Kwei Cheong, stating that it was decided on the basis that there had been a more effective and appropriate way to effect service which the creditors had ignored.
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd v Rasmachayana Sulistyo alias Chang Whe MingHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 87SingaporeSupports the conclusion that the advertisement of the notice of a statutory demand can constitute an “advertisement of the statutory demand”.
Rafat Ali Rizvi v Ing Bank NV Hong Kong BranchHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 114SingaporeOutlines the considerations which the court ought to have regard to when considering an extension of time.
In re ParkHigh Court of Justice, Chancery DivisionYes[1888] 41 Ch D 326England and WalesDiscusses the court's jurisdiction in dealing with solicitors' costs.
Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v GwillimCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 WLR 510England and WalesStates that the client's only protection against overcharging was to seek taxation.
Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong SenHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 206SingaporeRefers to Ralph Hume Garry and discusses the taxation process.
JWR Pte Ltd v Syn Kok Kay (trading as Patrick Chin Syn & Co)High CourtYes[2019] SGHC 253SingaporeRefers to Ralph Hume Garry and discusses the taxation process.
Engelin Teh Practice LLC formerly known as Engelin Teh and Partners v Tan Sui ChuanDistrict CourtYes[2006] SGDC 2SingaporeHeld that the provisions for taxation exist to provide certainty for both the solicitor and client.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeOutlines the three-step process in determining whether a term should be implied.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Bankruptcy Rules (Cap 20, R1, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession (Solicitors’ Remuneration) Order (Cap 161, O 1, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statutory Demand
  • Substituted Service
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Extension of Time
  • Cross-Demand
  • Implied Term
  • Last Known Address
  • Advertisement
  • Client Account
  • Letter of Engagement

15.2 Keywords

  • statutory demand
  • bankruptcy
  • service
  • taxation
  • legal fees
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Bankruptcy
  • Insolvency
  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Fees
  • Service of Documents

17. Areas of Law

  • Insolvency Law
  • Bankruptcy
  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Profession Act