Gomez v Bird & Bird: Professional Negligence Appeal over Enforcement of Judgment Sum
Kevin Bennett Gomez appealed the High Court's decision dismissing his professional negligence claim against Bird & Bird ATMD LLP and Boey Swee Siang, arising from their handling of the enforcement of a judgment sum against Mr. Kuhadas Vivekananda. The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Belinda Ang JCA, Kannan Ramesh JAD, and Hoo Sheau Peng J, dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of duty of care by the respondents in drafting a settlement agreement or in subsequent omissions. The court also addressed issues of causation and mitigation of loss.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed in professional negligence claim against Bird & Bird for handling enforcement of judgment. Court found no breach of duty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gomez, Kevin Bennett | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Bird & Bird ATMD LLP | Respondent, Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Anparasan s/o Kamachi, Vinodhan Gunasekaran |
| Boey Swee Siang | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Anparasan s/o Kamachi, Vinodhan Gunasekaran |
| Kuhadas Vivekananda | Other | Individual | |||
| Magnetron Insurance & Financial Services Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
| Belinda Ang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anparasan s/o Kamachi | WhiteFern LLC |
| Vinodhan Gunasekaran | WhiteFern LLC |
4. Facts
- The appellant claimed against Mr Kuhadas and Magnetron for unpaid commissions in Suit 700.
- The appellant obtained default judgment against Mr Kuhadas and Magnetron in April 2011.
- Total damages owed to the appellant were assessed to be $1,226,289.70 in October 2011.
- The respondents served a statutory demand on Mr Kuhadas in February 2012.
- The respondents filed a bankruptcy application against Mr Kuhadas, which was later withdrawn.
- An agreement was reached between the appellant and Mr Kuhadas on the terms contained in the 22 February 2013 E-mail.
- Mr Kuhadas fulfilled the terms of the agreement and made payments amounting to $50,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Gomez, Kevin Bennet v Bird & Bird ATMD LLP and another, Civil Appeal No 69 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 42
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit 700 filed against Mr Kuhadas and Magnetron | |
| Default judgment obtained against Mr Kuhadas | |
| Default judgment obtained against Magnetron | |
| Judgment granted against Mr Kuhadas and Magnetron jointly and severally | |
| First Statutory Demand served on Mr Kuhadas | |
| Thane St Property sold | |
| Changi Court Property sold | |
| First Bankruptcy Application filed against Mr Kuhadas | |
| First Bankruptcy Application withdrawn | |
| Second Statutory Demand served on Mr Kuhadas | |
| Magnetron shares belonging to Mr Kuhadas were seized | |
| Second Bankruptcy Application filed against Mr Kuhadas | |
| 22 February 2013 Agreement reached | |
| Leave granted for appellant to withdraw the Second Bankruptcy Application | |
| Third Statutory Demand issued against Mr Kuhadas | |
| Mr Kuhadas wrote to the second respondent | |
| October 2011 Judgment registered in the Supreme Court of New South Wales | |
| Australian Bankruptcy Notice served on Mr Kuhadas | |
| FCC Judgment issued | |
| Third Statutory Demand served on Mr Kuhadas by Parwani Law LLC | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed the application to set aside the Third Statutory Demand | |
| Appellant’s third bankruptcy application filed against Mr Kuhadas | |
| Chan Seng Onn J allowed the appeal and set aside the Third Statutory Demand | |
| Australian Appeal dismissed | |
| Suit 198 commenced against the respondents | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the second respondent did not breach his duty of care in drafting the 22 February 2013 E-mail.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation
- Mitigation of loss
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 230
- Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel does not arise because the parties to the present proceedings are clearly not the same as the parties in the Australian proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 1 SLR 1102
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Professional Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Professional Negligence
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gomez, Kevin Bennet v Bird & Bird ATMD LLP and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 230 | Singapore | Provides the background facts and the Judge’s grounds of decision in the case. |
| BNX v BOE and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 215 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must decide whether emails should be admitted. |
| Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Negligent Advice Claim is not a new point within an existing claim. |
| JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 744 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that raising a new case is an abuse of the appeal process. |
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1442 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. |
| Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a solicitor is expected to exercise the care and skill of a reasonably competent solicitor. |
| Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp (formerly known as Merck & Co, Inc) v Merck KGaA (formerly known as E Merck) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1102 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that foreign judgments are capable of giving rise to issue estoppel. |
| Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan David | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR (R) 663 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would have to consider the context in which the agreement was arrived at, including the preceding negotiations between the parties. |
| Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a trial judge’s findings of fact would not be disturbed unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence. |
| Cristian Priwisata Yacob and another v Wibowo Boediono and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant should use its resources to do what is reasonable to put itself into as good a position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Pilgrim Private Debt Fund v Asian Appraisal Company Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant should use its resources to do what is reasonable to put itself into as good a position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Sandar Aung v Parkway Hospitals Singapore Pte Ltd (trading as Mount Elizabeth Hospital) and another | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 891 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of the parol evidence rule. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Bankruptcy Rules (2002 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Cap 163A, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judgment Sum
- 22 February 2013 Agreement
- Professional Negligence
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Causation
- Mitigation of Loss
- Bankruptcy Application
- Statutory Demand
15.2 Keywords
- Professional Negligence
- Appeal
- Judgment Sum
- Breach of Duty
- Causation
- Mitigation
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Professional Negligence
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Legal Profession
- Professional conduct
- Tort
- Negligence
- Res judicata
- Issue estoppel