Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret: Application for Leave to Appeal Decision on Reimbursement of Legal Fees

In Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Lin Jianwei for a declaration that he did not require leave to appeal against a decision regarding the reimbursement of legal fees. The court dismissed the application, finding that leave to appeal was required and that an extension of time to apply for leave should not be granted. The court also found that even if an extension of time was granted, there was no justification to grant the plaintiff leave to appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lin Jianwei sought a declaration that he didn't need leave to appeal a decision regarding reimbursement of legal fees. The court dismissed the application.

1.7 Decision Date

25 October 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lin Jianwei	Plaintiff	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Danica Gan Fang Ling of Fullerton Law Chambers LLC Brinden Anandakumar of Fullerton Law Chambers LLC Eng Zixuan Edmund of Fullerton Law Chambers LLC Chang Chee Jun of Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
Tung Yu-Lien Margaret	Defendant	Individual	Application granted	Won	Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SC of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Pardeep Singh Khosa of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Tan Mao Lin of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Tan Siew Wei Cheryl of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Delvin Chua of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Kenneth Koh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Danica Gan Fang Ling	Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
Brinden Anandakumar	Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
Eng Zixuan Edmund	Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
Chang Chee Jun	Fullerton Law Chambers LLC
Davinder Singh s/o Amar Singh SC	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Pardeep Singh Khosa	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Tan Mao Lin	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Tan Siew Wei Cheryl	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Delvin Chua	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Kenneth Koh	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Lin Jianwei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret are the only two shareholders and directors of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
Lin Jianwei is the executive chairman and 60% shareholder of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
Tung Yu-Lien Margaret is the director and 40% shareholder of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
Lin Jianwei sought a declaration that he did not require leave to appeal against the decision in Summons No 1281 of 2020.
Summons No 1281 of 2020 concerned the reimbursement of legal fees paid by Tung Yu-Lien Margaret on behalf of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd.
The first defendant sought reimbursement of the Fees she had paid on behalf of the second defendant to Nair & Co LLC and Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP.
The plaintiff opposed SUM 1281 as he opined that the Fees were excessive and he wanted to send the solicitors’ bills for taxation.

5. Formal Citations

Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and another, Originating Summons No 1446 of 2018 (Summons No 3929 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 229

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-01-01	Originating Summons No 1446 of 2018 filed
2018-12-13	Nair & Co LLC engaged to act for the second defendant
2018-12-31	Summons No 4 of 2019 filed
2019-03-04	Consent order agreed to
2019-03-14	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP appointed to act for the second defendant
2019-10-04	Plaintiff sought leave to discontinue his claim in OS 1446
2020-03-16	Originating Summons No 320 of 2020 commenced
2020-03-17	Summons No 1281 filed in OS 1446
2020-07-27	OS 320 dismissed and SUM 1281 allowed
2020-08-12	Two Notices of Appeal filed in Civil Appeal No 137 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No 140 of 2020
2020-08-27	First defendant applied to the Court of Appeal by way of Summons No 90 of 2020 and Summons No 91 of 2020 to strike out the Notices of Appeal
2020-09-11	Summons No 3929 filed
2020-10-26	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was required and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 2 SLR 105
  - [2019] 1 SLR 131
  - [2013] 3 SLR 354
  - [2014] 2 SLR 63
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565
  - [2001] 3 SLR(R) 335
  - [1991] 2 SLR(R) 260
  - [2016] 3 SLR 1195
  - [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 25
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135
  - [1999] 3 SLR(R) 138
  - [2013] 2 SLR 340
  - [2019] SGHC 253
  - [2010] 4 SLR 590
  - [2015] 5 SLR 722
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 224
  - [2011] SGHC 203

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the plaintiff does not require leave to appeal against the decision in Summons No 1281 of 2020.
Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.
Leave to appeal against the decision in Summons No 1281 of 2020.

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 105	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of s 34(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and the meaning of 'only issue...relates to costs'.
Telecom Credit Inc v Midas United Group Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 131	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of 'order' and 'interlocutory application' in para 1(h) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 354	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of 'order' and 'interlocutory application' in para 1(h) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
The “Nasco Gem”	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 63	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of 'order' and 'interlocutory application' in para 1(h) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 525	Singapore	Cited to show that an order granted in one proceeding may be interlocutory and yet the same nature of order granted in another proceeding may well be final.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757	Singapore	Cited for the four factors that the court will have to consider when deciding whether to grant an extension of time.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited for the court’s “overriding concern” is the need for finality in order to ensure justice and fairness.
Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others	Unknown	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR(R) 335	Singapore	Cited for the prejudice must be one that cannot be compensated by an appropriate order as to costs.
Pearson Judtih Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260	Singapore	Cited for a bona fide mistake by the party’s solicitors in the computation of time was not a sufficient ground to grant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.
The “Xin Chang Shu”	Unknown	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1195	Singapore	Cited for in an appropriate case, where there is uncertainty over whether leave to appeal is required, the proper approach is for the appellant to seek a declaration from the judge that it does not need leave to appeal.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another	Unknown	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862	Singapore	Cited for the “common thread” underlying these grounds is that to deny leave may result in a “miscarriage of justice”.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and others	Unknown	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 25	Singapore	Cited for the court will only grant leave to appeal where the error is “clear beyond reasonable argument”.
IW v IX	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 135	Singapore	Cited for the test of prima facie case of error would not be satisfied by the assertion that the judge had reached the wrong conclusion on the evidence.
Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 138	Singapore	Cited for the test of prima facie case of error would not be satisfied by the assertion that the judge had reached the wrong conclusion on the evidence.
Ang Thiam Swee v Low Hian Chor	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 340	Singapore	Cited for the legal threshold for good faith.
JWR Pte Ltd v Syn Kok Kay (trading as Patrick Chin Syn & Co)	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 253	Singapore	Cited for the test for special circumstances.
Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corp and another	Unknown	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 590	Singapore	Cited for the test for special circumstances.
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu	Unknown	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 722	Singapore	Cited for the test for special circumstances.
Hong Leong Finance Ltd v Famco (S) Pte Ltd and others	Unknown	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 224	Singapore	Cited regarding an application for leave to amend a party’s defence.
Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers and others	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 203	Singapore	Cited regarding an application for the vacation of trial dates.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 56 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
s 34 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 216A of the Companies Act	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 122 of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Leave to appeal
Extension of time
Reimbursement of legal fees
Interlocutory application
Consent order
Taxation of fees
Good faith

15.2 Keywords

Leave to appeal
Civil procedure
Singapore
Legal fees
Interlocutory application

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	75
Civil Procedure	70
Appellate Practice	60

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Appeals
Legal Fees
Leave to Appeal