Tan v Tan: Taxation of Solicitor's Bills & Legal Profession Act
Ms. Cheryl Tan Yi Lin applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 7 October 2021, seeking an order to refer 17 bills issued by her solicitor, Mr. Tan Yew Fai, for taxation. The bills were for legal services rendered in three civil suits. Tan Siong Thye J dismissed the application, finding that Ms. Tan failed to prove special circumstances under Section 122 of the Legal Profession Act, which would justify the taxation of bills paid more than 12 months prior.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to tax 17 bills issued by solicitor. Court dismissed application, finding no special circumstances under Legal Profession Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheryl Tan Yi Lin | Applicant | Individual | Originating Summons dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Yew Fai (trading as Y F Tan & Co) | Respondent | Individual | Originating Summons dismissed | Won | Tan Yew Fai of Y F Tan & Co |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anil Narain Balchandani | Red Lion Circle |
| Tan Yew Fai | Y F Tan & Co |
4. Facts
- The Applicant engaged the Respondent as her solicitor to resolve disputes with two insurance companies following her husband's death.
- The Respondent issued 17 bills to the Applicant for legal services in three civil suits from 2018 to 2021.
- The Applicant paid all 17 invoices in full.
- Twelve of the 17 invoices were issued more than 12 months before the application to refer the bills for taxation.
- The Respondent did not provide a letter of engagement for either suit, but provided an identical Warrant to Act for each suit.
- The Applicant sought a second opinion on the AIA Appeal and asked the Respondent to pause work.
- The Respondent’s firm filed AD/SUM 2/2021 on 20 April 2021 to seek the court’s permission to be discharged from acting for the Applicant.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Yi Lin Cheryl v Tan Yew Fai (trading as Y F Tan & Co), Originating Summons No 1013 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 47
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Warrant to Act signed for Aviva Suit | |
| Applicant engaged Respondent as her solicitor | |
| Respondent provided Table of Estimated Costs | |
| Aviva Suit settled | |
| Applicant commenced AIA Suit | |
| Warrant to Act signed for AIA Suit | |
| Applicant sought a second opinion on the AIA Appeal | |
| Applicant requested the Respondent to tax his bills | |
| Respondent informed Applicant to instruct another law firm | |
| Respondent’s firm filed AD/SUM 2/2021 | |
| Respondent’s application granted by Woo Bih Li JAD | |
| Applicant filed OS 1013/2021 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxation of Solicitor's Bills
- Outcome: The court held that the Applicant failed to prove special circumstances under s 122 of the Legal Profession Act, and thus dismissed the application for taxation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Overcharging
- Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
- Lack of knowledge of right to taxation
- Special Circumstances for Taxation
- Outcome: The court found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances that would justify an order for taxation under s 122 of the LPA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicant's knowledge of right to taxation
- Apparent overcharging
- Breach of Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to refer bills for taxation
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Taxation of Solicitor's Bills
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Legal Fee Disputes
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 722 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that determining whether there are “special circumstances” pursuant to s 122 of the LPA is a fact-sensitive inquiry. |
| Wee Harry Lee v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1979–1980] SLR(R) 603 | Singapore | Cited as an example of special circumstances: prolonged negotiation over fees between solicitor and client after which the client applies for taxation. |
| Ho Cheng Lay v Low Yong Sen | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 206 | Singapore | Cited as an example of special circumstances: a disciplinary committee’s finding that the solicitor has in fact overcharged; an impecunious client who requires time to secure a grant of legal aid in order to apply under s 120; a bill which fails to provide sufficient information. |
| Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Asia Law Corp | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 590 | Singapore | Cited as an example of special circumstances: duress, pressure or fraud by the solicitor. |
| In re Hirst & Capes | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1908] 1 KB 982 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of duress, pressure or fraud by the solicitor. |
| Marisol Llenos Foley v Harry Elias Partnership LLP | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 188 | Singapore | Cited for the special circumstances that justified an order for taxation under s 122 of the LPA. |
| H&C S Holdings Pte Ltd v Gabriel Law Corp | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 168 | Singapore | Cited for the relevant principles and the legislative intent of s 122 of the LPA. |
| Teh Siew Hua v Tan Kim Chiong | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 123 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of a limitation period. |
| Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd v ALTS Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 WLR 2871 | England and Wales | Cited for the purpose of a limitation period. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan Arul | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 1184 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that solicitors have an obligation to inform their clients of their right to taxation. |
| Koh Kim Teck v Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 596 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that overcharging is a factor militating in favour of “special circumstances”. |
| Ralph Hume Garry (a firm) v Gwillim | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 WLR 510 | England and Wales | Cited for the need to protect the solicitor against late ambush being laid on a technical point by a client who seeks only to evade paying his debt. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
| r 17 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
| r 26 of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 120(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 122 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Taxation
- Solicitor's bills
- Special circumstances
- Legal Profession Act
- Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015
- Warrant to Act
- Overcharging
15.2 Keywords
- Taxation of solicitor's bills
- Legal Profession Act
- Special circumstances
- Overcharging
- Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Taxation of Legal Fees | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Legal Profession
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Taxation