Foley v Harry Elias Partnership LLP: Taxation of Paid Legal Bills & Professional Conduct

In Marisol Llenos Foley v Harry Elias Partnership LLP, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an originating summons regarding the taxation of legal bills. Ms. Foley sought taxation of previously paid invoices from Harry Elias Partnership LLP, her former legal representatives in divorce proceedings. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Philip Jeyaretnam, found special circumstances existed under the Legal Profession Act, including Ms. Foley's lack of awareness of her right to taxation and the law firm's failure to adequately inform her of this right. The court granted Ms. Foley's application for an order for taxation of the specified invoices.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Order for taxation under Legal Profession Act section 120 granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered taxation of legal bills paid by Ms. Foley to Harry Elias Partnership LLP, citing special circumstances and breach of professional conduct.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Marisol Llenos FoleyPlaintiffIndividualApplication grantedWon
Harry Elias Partnership LLPDefendantLimited Liability PartnershipApplication for summary judgment dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yow Choon Seng MorrisInfinity Legal LLC
Yau Yin Ting XeniaInfinity Legal LLC
Chan Qi Ming EugeneHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Marisol engaged Harry Elias Partnership LLP to represent her in divorce proceedings.
  2. Ms. Marisol paid six invoices from Harry Elias Partnership LLP before seeking taxation of four of them.
  3. Ms. Marisol claimed she was unaware of her right to have the bills taxed.
  4. The law firm's engagement letter referred to taxation but did not explain it in plain English.
  5. The law firm did not expressly deny that the engagement letter was not explained to Ms Marisol.
  6. Ms. Marisol raised queries about the bills, but the law firm did not inform her of her right to tax them.
  7. The divorce was uncontested, and ancillaries were resolved at mediation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Marisol Llenos Foley v Harry Elias Partnership LLP, Originating Summons No 454 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 188

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ms Marisol signed Harry Elias Partnership LLP’s engagement letter.
Ms Marisol's affidavit of assets and means was filed.
Ancillaries were resolved at a one-day mediation conducted under the auspices of the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Harry Elias Partnership LLP’s seventh and final invoice was issued.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Taxation of Legal Bills
    • Outcome: The court held that special circumstances existed, allowing taxation of the bills despite prior payment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Special circumstances for taxation after payment
      • Client's knowledge of right to taxation
      • Solicitor's duty to inform client of right to taxation
  2. Professional Conduct
    • Outcome: The court found that the law firm did not comply with its duty to inform the client of her right to tax the bills.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty to charge fairly and reasonably
      • Duty to inform client of right to taxation
      • Compliance with Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for taxation of legal bills

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for taxation of legal bills

10. Practice Areas

  • Professional Conduct
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLPCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 596SingaporeCited for the principle that taxation is the exclusive recourse for a client to challenge a solicitor's bill and that 'special circumstances' should not be construed narrowly against the client.
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v ThangaveluN/AYes[2015] 5 SLR 722SingaporeCited for the principle that the special circumstance must explain and excuse the fact that the client paid the bills without reserving her right to tax them.
Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan ArulN/AYes[2011] 4 SLR 1184SingaporeCited for the principle that solicitors have an obligation to inform their clients of their option to have bills of costs taxed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 4
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17(2)(a)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17(3)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17(3)(c)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17(3)(d)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 17(5)
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 26
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 r 26(6)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 120Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) s 122Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Taxation
  • Special circumstances
  • Professional conduct
  • Legal bills
  • Engagement letter
  • Duty to inform
  • Fairness
  • Reasonableness

15.2 Keywords

  • Taxation
  • Legal bills
  • Professional conduct
  • Singapore
  • Legal Profession Act
  • Professional Conduct Rules

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Professional Conduct Rules90
Assessment of Legal Costs85
Taxation of Legal Fees80
Legal Profession Act75
Divorce40
Family Law30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Legal Profession
  • Taxation of Costs
  • Professional Ethics