JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp: Negligence Claim Appeal for Solicitor's Conduct
JWR Pte Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore against the dismissal of its negligence claim against Edmond Pereira Law Corporation and Edmond Avethas Pereira, its former solicitors, for the negligent conduct of an action in the High Court. The appellant sought to introduce a new allegation of negligence on appeal, which was not raised during the trial. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Tay Yong Kwang JA, dismissed the appeal and the associated application to amend the Statement of Claim, finding it unjust to change the case so fundamentally at this stage. The judgment was delivered by Tay Yong Kwang JA on 16 July 2020.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
JWR Pte Ltd appeals dismissal of negligence claim against its former solicitors. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's new negligence allegation unjust.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JWR Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Chong Siew Nyuk Josephine, Navin Kangatharan |
| Edmond Pereira Law Corporation | Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Harjean Kaur |
| Edmond Avethas Pereira | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Harjean Kaur |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chong Siew Nyuk Josephine | Josephine Chong LLC |
| Navin Kangatharan | Josephine Chong LLC |
| Christopher Anand s/o Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Harjean Kaur | Advocatus Law LLP |
4. Facts
- JWR Pte Ltd claimed its former solicitors, Edmond Pereira Law Corporation, were negligent in handling a prior High Court action.
- The original action involved a dispute over a distributorship agreement for Immunotec Products.
- JWR Pte Ltd alleged fraudulent misrepresentation by Helen Lee, who represented Immunotec Research (S) Pte Ltd and United Yield International Pte Ltd.
- The solicitors commenced an action against Helen Lee, but it was struck out for inadequately pleading the piercing of the corporate veil.
- JWR Pte Ltd then sued the solicitors for negligence, claiming they failed to properly advise and conduct the original suit.
- On appeal, JWR Pte Ltd sought to introduce a new allegation of negligence, arguing the solicitors failed to appreciate the principle of director's personal liability.
- The Court of Appeal found it unjust to allow JWR Pte Ltd to fundamentally change its case on appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another, Civil Appeal No 141 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 68
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| JWR Pte Ltd incorporated. | |
| JWR Pte Ltd signed the IRS Distributorship Agreement. | |
| JWR Pte Ltd signed the UYI Distributorship Agreement. | |
| UYI sent JWR Pte Ltd a notice purporting to terminate the UYI Distributorship Agreement. | |
| Dr. Chen met Mr. Edmond Pereira and wanted his law firm to commence legal proceedings against Helen Lee and UYI. | |
| Edmond Pereira Law Corporation commenced HC/S 896/2012 against Helen Lee. | |
| Helen Lee filed an application to strike out JWR Pte Ltd’s claim in the Original Suit. | |
| JWR Pte Ltd commenced the Negligence Suit, HC/S 992/2015, against the respondents. | |
| JWR Pte Ltd applied in SUM 23 to seek leave under O 57 r 9A(4)(b) of the Rules of Court to raise a new point on appeal and to amend its SOC. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Grounds of decision delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant could not prove negligence on the respondents’ part.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise due care
- Failure to render appropriate legal advice
- Commencing proceeding against the wrong party
- Failure to file an application under Section 340 of the Companies Act
- Failure to include sufficient particulars in the Statement of Claim
- Failure to apply for leave to amend the Statement of Claim
- Failure to consider and advise on Section 343 of the Companies Act
- Allowing the claim to be struck out
- Failure to provide competent representations
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to amend the Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Raising New Points on Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to raise a new point on appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737
- [2019] 1 SLR 873
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for negligence
- Repayment of legal fees
- Costs of the Striking Out Application
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited regarding a director's personal liability for their own torts committed in relation to the company’s affairs. |
| Multistar Holdings Ltd v Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold question in determining whether an amendment to pleadings should be allowed is whether it would introduce a new cause of action. |
| Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited for the considerations in granting leave to raise a new point on appeal and for leave to amend the SOC. |
| Abhilash s/o Kunchian Krishnan v Yeo Hock Huat and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 873 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the granting of leave to raise new points on appeal. |
| Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Faith Maritime Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing the granting of leave to raise new points on appeal. |
| Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 76 | Singapore | Cited for principles governing the granting of leave to raise new points on appeal. |
| Connecticut Fire Insurance Company v Kavanagh | Privy Council | Yes | [1892] AC 473 | United Kingdom | Cited for principles governing the granting of leave to raise new points on appeal. |
| The Owners of the Ship “Tasmania” and the Owners of the Freight v Smith and others, The Owners of the Ship “City of Corinth”, The Tasmania | House of Lords | Yes | (1890) 15 LR App Cas 223 | United Kingdom | Cited for principles governing the introduction of a new point of law on appeal. |
| North Staffordshire Railway Company v Edge | House of Lords | Yes | [1920] AC 254 | United Kingdom | Cited for principles governing the introduction of a new point of law on appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 57 r 9A(4)(b) of the Rules of Court |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 1998 section 16 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Negligence
- Director's Personal Liability
- Piercing the Corporate Veil
- Amendment of Pleadings
- New Point on Appeal
- Rules of Court
- Limitation Period
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Distributorship Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- solicitor
- appeal
- civil procedure
- Singapore
- director's liability
- corporate veil
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Professional Negligence
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Pleadings
- Amendment
- Professional Negligence