LVM Law Chambers LLC v Wan Hoe Keet: Conflict of Interest & Legal Representation
The Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal by LVM Law Chambers LLC against the High Court's decision to restrain them from acting for Ms. Chan Pik Sun in Suit 806/2018 against Mr. Wan Hoe Keet and Ms. Sally Ho. The central legal issue was whether a law firm that acted for a party against another in previous proceedings could act for a different party against the same counterparty in subsequent proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, permitting LVM Law Chambers LLC to continue representing Ms. Chan, subject to the condition that they not disclose the terms of the settlement agreement from the previous proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal addresses whether a law firm can represent a party against another in subsequent proceedings. Appeal allowed with condition.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chan Pik Sun | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Wan Hoe Keet (Wen Haojie) | Respondent, Applicant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ho Sally | Respondent, Applicant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| LVM Law Chambers LLC | Appellant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Lee Hwee Yeow | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- LVM Law Chambers LLC acted for Dr. Lee in Suit 315/2016 against Mr. Wan and Ms. Ho.
- Suit 315/2016 was settled, and a Settlement Agreement was signed with a confidentiality clause.
- LVM Law Chambers LLC is now acting for Ms. Chan in Suit 806/2018 against Mr. Wan and Ms. Ho.
- Suit 806/2018 involves allegations of fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations related to a Ponzi scheme.
- Mr. Wan and Ms. Ho sought an injunction to restrain LVM Law Chambers LLC from acting for Ms. Chan.
- The High Court granted the injunction, finding a conflict of interest and a threat of misuse of confidential information.
- The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, permitting LVM Law Chambers LLC to continue representing Ms. Chan, subject to a condition.
5. Formal Citations
- LVM Law Chambers LLC v Wan Hoe Keet and another, Civil Appeal No 102 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 29
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 315 of 2016 filed | |
| Settlement Agreement signed in Suit 315/2016 | |
| Suit No 806 of 2018 commenced | |
| Summons No 4524 of 2018 filed | |
| Summons No 4562 of 2018 filed | |
| Hearing of Summons No 4524 and 4562 of 2018 | |
| Letter sent to Appellant to cease representation in Suit 806/2018 | |
| Originating Summons No 13 of 2019 filed | |
| Court of Appeal hearing | |
| Grounds of decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the law firm could continue to act for its client, subject to the condition that it not disclose the terms of the settlement agreement from the previous proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Law firm representing a party against the same counterparty in subsequent proceedings
- Misuse of confidential information
- Equitable duty of confidence
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGHC 103
- [2009] NSWCA 354
- [2001] 3 NZLR 343
- Breach of Confidence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Respondents had not discharged their burden in proving that any matters relating to the settlement negotiations in Suit 315/2016 (other than the terms of the Settlement Agreement) were confidential.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Obligation of confidentiality
- Misuse of confidential information
- Real and sensible possibility of misuse
- Related Cases:
- [1969] RPC 41
- [2015] 5 SLR 522
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction to restrain the law firm from acting for the opposing party
9. Cause of Actions
- Injunction
- Breach of Confidence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Dispute Resolution
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wan Hoe Keet and another v LVM Law Chambers LLC | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 103 | Singapore | The High Court decision which granted the injunction against the Appellant law firm, which was then appealed. |
| Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] NSWCA 354 | Australia | Cited as a similar case where an injunction was granted to restrain a law firm from acting due to conflict of interest. |
| Invenpro (M) Sdn Bhd v JCS Automation Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1045 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an equitable duty of confidence can arise even without an explicit agreement. |
| Carter Holt Harvey Forests Ltd v Sunnex Logging Ltd | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 NZLR 343 | New Zealand | Discussed in relation to confidentiality agreements signed by lawyers in their personal capacity during mediation. |
| Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [1969] RPC 41 | England and Wales | Cited for the test for breach of confidence, which was modified and applied to the case at hand. |
| ANB v ANC and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 522 | Singapore | Cited as a Singapore case that applied the test for breach of confidence from Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. |
| Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Limited v Secretary, Department of Community Services and Health | Australian Federal Court | Yes | (1990) 22 FCR 73 | Australia | Cited for its discussion of the elements required to establish a breach of confidence. |
| James John Mitchell v Pattern Holdings Pty Ltd | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2000] NSWSC 1015 | Australia | Cited in relation to the settlement context and the assumption of confidentiality by lawyers. |
| Ian West Indoor and Outdoor Services Pty Ltd v Australian Posters Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2011] VSC 287 | Australia | Cited in relation to the settlement context and the assumption of confidentiality by lawyers. |
| Taylor v Blacklow | Court of Common Pleas | Yes | (1836) 3 Bing (NC) 235 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a lawyer owes a duty of confidence to their client. |
| Williamson v Schmidt | Supreme Court of Brisbane | Yes | [1998] 2 Qd R 317 | Australia | Cited for the principle that mere assertions or vague generalisations are insufficient to establish a breach of confidence. |
| Tricontinental Corporation Ltd v Holding Redlich (a firm) | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | (Unreported, 22 December 1994) | Australia | Cited for the principle that a court might prevent a lawyer from acting for a party in subsequent proceedings due to the risk of unconscious misuse of confidential information. |
| Grimwade v Meagher and others | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1995] 1 VR 446 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a court might prevent a lawyer from acting for a party in subsequent proceedings due to the risk of unconscious misuse of confidential information. |
| Adex International (Ireland) Limited v IBM United Kingdom Limited | Central London County Court | Yes | (Unreported, 17 November 2000) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a court might prevent a lawyer from acting for a party in subsequent proceedings due to the risk of unconscious misuse of confidential information. |
| Farrow Mortgage Services Pty Ltd (in liq) v Mendall Properties Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1995] 1 VR 1 | Australia | Cited for the 'real and sensible possibility' test for misuse of confidential information. |
| Mallesons Stephen Jacques v KPMG Peat Marwick | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | (1990) 4 WAR 357 | Australia | Cited for the 'real and sensible possibility' test for misuse of confidential information. |
| Glencairn IP Holdings Limited v Product Specialities Inc | English High Court | Yes | [2009] EWHC 1733 (IPEC) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the party seeking an injunction to prevent a lawyer from acting. |
| Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overall legal burden of proof lies on the party seeking an injunction. |
| Prince Jefri Bolkiah v KPMG (a firm) | Privy Council | Yes | [1999] 2 AC 222 | United Kingdom | Distinguished from the present case as it involved a former client applying for an injunction. |
| Virgin Media Communications Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 2854 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a litigant should be free to instruct the lawyer of his choice. |
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977] QB 881 | England and Wales | Mentioned in relation to an allegation of breach of principle, but not central to the court's reasoning. |
| Worth Recycling Pty Ltd v Waste Recycling and Processing Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2009] NSWSC 356 | Australia | Cited as a similar case where an injunction was granted to restrain a law firm from acting due to conflict of interest. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 24 Rule 11 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 92 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conflict of interest
- Confidentiality
- Settlement agreement
- Injunction
- Legal representation
- Equitable duty of confidence
- Real and sensible possibility
- Misuse of information
15.2 Keywords
- Conflict of interest
- Injunction
- Law firm
- Legal representation
- Settlement
- Confidentiality
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Injunctions | 60 |
| Ponzi Schemes | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 20 |
| Evidence | 20 |
| Trust Law | 10 |
| Costs | 10 |
| Corporate Law | 10 |
| Arbitration | 10 |
| Duty of Candour | 10 |
| Estoppel | 10 |
| Agency Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Legal Ethics
- Conflict of Interest
- Injunctions