Cheng Hoe Soon v Ezekiel Peter Latimer: Negligence Claim Struck Out Due to Solicitor's Conduct

In Cheng Hoe Soon v Ezekiel Peter Latimer, the plaintiff, Cheng Hoe Soon, appealed against the decision to strike out his claim against the defendant, Ezekiel Peter Latimer, his former solicitor, for negligence in handling a prior District Court suit. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by Justice Tan Siong Thye, allowed the appeal on 3 March 2023, finding the striking out order disproportionate due to the misconduct of the plaintiff's new solicitors, S K Kumar Law Practice LLP (SKK). The court reinstated the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding striking out of negligence claim against solicitor due to Plaintiff's new solicitor's conduct. Appeal allowed, SOC reinstated.

1.7 Decision Date

2 March 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Cheng Hoe Soon	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Foo Ho Chew of H C Law Practice
Ezekiel Peter Latimer (formerly practicing in the style of M/S Peter Ezekiel & Co)	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Christine Chiam of Titanium Law Chambers LLC Wee Anthony of Titanium Law Chambers LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Foo Ho Chew	H C Law Practice
Christine Chiam	Titanium Law Chambers LLC
Wee Anthony	Titanium Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

The Plaintiff was involved in a road traffic accident in 2008.
The Defendant, the Plaintiff's solicitor, failed to set down the District Court suit for trial by 31 March 2015.
The Plaintiff's claim in the District Court suit was struck off as a result of the Defendant's failure.
The Plaintiff initiated Suit 654 against the Defendant for negligence in his conduct of the District Court suit.
SKK, the Plaintiff's new solicitors, repeatedly failed to attend pre-trial conferences.
The Plaintiff's Statement of Claim in Suit 654 was struck out due to SKK's repeated absences from pre-trial conferences.
Mr. Foo appeared at the PTC on 27 September 2022, but the First AR refused to acknowledge that Mr. Foo was representing the Plaintiff.

5. Formal Citations

Cheng Hoe Soon v Ezekiel Peter Latimer (formerly practicing in the style of M/S Peter Ezekiel & Co), Suit No 654 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeal No 334 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 53

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-31	Road traffic accident occurred
2009-04-24	Writ of Summons issued in District Court suit
2015-02-03	Order of Court (DC/ORC 1349/2015) issued, requiring Defendant to set down DC 1462 for trial by 31 March 2015
2015-03-31	Defendant failed to set down DC 1462 for trial
2016-02-24	Defendant failed to attend appeal hearing
2016-03-03	Court refused Defendant's request to restore appeal hearing
2019-07-01	Plaintiff initiated Suit 654 against Defendant
2019-09-13	Notice of Appointment of Solicitor (SKK) filed
2022-04-12	Pre-trial conference adjourned due to Mr. Yeo not having a valid practicing certificate
2022-04-26	Pre-trial conference adjourned due to Mr. Yeo not having a valid practicing certificate
2022-05-17	Pre-trial conference adjourned due to no solicitor from SKK appearing
2022-05-23	Pre-trial conference adjourned due to no solicitor from SKK appearing
2022-06-14	Plaintiff ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the Defendant
2022-08-23	Pre-trial conference adjourned due to no solicitor from SKK appearing
2022-09-27	Plaintiff's Statement of Claim struck out
2022-09-27	SKK requested a further hearing or review of the First AR’s 27 September 2022 Order
2022-09-29	Request for further hearing or review refused
2022-10-19	SKK filed a summons on behalf of the Plaintiff, HC/SUM 3828/2022
2022-11-04	Hearing for SUM 3828 took place
2023-01-13	Appeal heard
2023-02-22	Show cause hearing
2023-03-03	Judgment reserved. Appeal Allowed

7. Legal Issues

Professional Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff appears to have a strong case against the Defendant for the latter’s negligent handling of his road traffic accident claim.
- Category: Substantive
Striking Out
- Outcome: The court held that the striking out of the Plaintiff’s SOC was a disproportionate consequence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 3 SLR 1179
Costs
- Outcome: The court directed that the Plaintiff's solicitors, and not the Plaintiff, are to bear the costs arising from the previous costs orders as well as costs arising from this appeal.
- Category: Procedural
Jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar
- Outcome: The court held that the Second AR had the jurisdiction to decide on the merits of the prayers sought by the Plaintiff in SUM 3828.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 611
  - [2000] 2 SLR(R) 798

8. Remedies Sought

Reversal of order to strike out Statement of Claim
Reinstatement of Statement of Claim
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Duty of Care

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 1179	Singapore	Cited for the principle that striking out a claim is a draconian sanction and the court must consider proportionality.
The “MMM Diana” ex “Able Director”	High Court	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 611	Singapore	Cited to argue that the Second AR was in a position to set aside the 27 September 2022 Order issued by the First AR.
Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (formerly known as Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Banque International A Luxembourg Bil (Asia) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 798	Singapore	Cited to argue that an assistant registrar could not normally vary another assistant registrar’s order as he lacked jurisdiction to do so.
Teeni Enterprise Pte Ltd v Singco Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 115	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court must balance the need to ensure compliance with court orders and the need to ensure that a party would not be summarily deprived of its cause of action.
Pakirisamy Rajoo and another v Sheila Devi d/o Pakirisamy Rajoo	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 285	Singapore	Cited to argue that SKK’s solicitors should have been cognisant of the consequences of failing to attend hearings fixed by the court.

13. Applicable Rules

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

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Unless order
Striking out
Professional negligence
Pre-trial conference
Contumelious conduct
Proportionality
Jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar

15.2 Keywords

negligence
solicitor
striking out
appeal
civil procedure
costs
professional negligence

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Malpractice	90
Professional Negligence	85
Civil Procedure	80
Negligence	75
Personal liability of solicitor for costs	70
Costs	70
Automobile Accidents	65
Striking out	60
Civil Litigation	60
Damages	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Tort Law
Professional Responsibility