Arbiters Inc Law Corp v Arokiasamy Steven Joseph: Taxation of Legal Fees in Negligence Suit
In Arbiters Inc Law Corp v Arokiasamy Steven Joseph and Tan Kin Tee, the Singapore High Court addressed the taxation of legal fees claimed by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation. The law firm represented the respondents in a negligence suit against doctors and the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) following their son's suicide. The court found that the letters of engagement were not contentious business agreements and ordered the applicant's fees to be fixed at $60,000 inclusive of reasonable disbursements, and Mr. Balchandani's fees to be fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements. The applicant is to pay the plaintiffs $2,000 each.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
The court ordered that the applicant's fees be fixed at $60,000 inclusive of reasonable disbursements and that Mr. Balchandani's fees be fixed at $25,000 inclusive of disbursements. The applicant is to pay the plaintiffs $2,000 each.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on taxation of Arbiters Inc Law Corp's legal fees in a negligence suit against doctors and IMH, following a settlement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbiters Inc Law Corporation | Applicant | Corporation | Fees fixed | Partial | |
| Arokiasamy Steven Joseph | Respondent | Individual | Costs awarded | Won | |
| Tan Kin Tee | Respondent | Individual | Costs awarded | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicant, Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, sued the respondents for payment of legal fees.
- The respondents were plaintiffs in Suit 833 of 2020, represented by Mr. Anil Balchandani.
- The plaintiffs engaged Mr. Balchandani to sue two doctors and the Institute of Mental Health for negligence.
- The negligence claim stemmed from the suicide of the plaintiffs' son.
- The plaintiffs signed a letter of engagement with the applicant on 25 November 2020.
- The first plaintiff signed a fresh letter of engagement on 8 April 2021.
- The trial was fixed to begin on 12 January 2023 but was adjourned.
- The plaintiffs discharged their lawyers and settled with the defendants without admission of liability.
- The settlement included $30,000 towards legal costs.
- The applicant claimed $85,072.28 from both plaintiffs and $341,410.75 from the first plaintiff.
- The applicant also claimed £12,300 for Prof Eleni's fees.
- The plaintiffs argued they could not afford the legal fees.
5. Formal Citations
- Arbiters Inc Law Corp v Arokiasamy Steven Joseph (in his personal capacity and in his capacity as administrator of the estate of Salvin Foster Steven, the deceased) and another, Originating Application No 1008 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Action commenced by Mr. Balchandani on behalf of both plaintiffs. | |
| Applicant instructed to assist Mr. Balchandani. | |
| Plaintiffs signed a letter of engagement for the applicant to represent them. | |
| First plaintiff signed a fresh letter of engagement to be represented by the applicant. | |
| Plaintiffs discontinued their claim against Dr. Gomathinayagam. | |
| Pre-trial conference held. | |
| Trial dates fixed. | |
| Trial was fixed to begin. | |
| Mr. Rai filed an application to record a settlement. | |
| Mr. Balchandani and Mr. Rai had been discharged by their clients. | |
| Settlement between the plaintiffs and the first and third defendants was recorded by the court. | |
| Judgments in [2023] SGHC 230 released. | |
| Judgments in [2023] SGHC 291 released. | |
| Trial adjourned to this date. | |
| Originating Application No 1008 of 2023 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxation of legal fees
- Outcome: The court held that the letters of engagement were not contentious business agreements and ordered the fees to be taxed.
- Category: Procedural
- Validity of contentious business agreements
- Outcome: The court found the letters of engagement did not meet the requirements of a contentious business agreement under s 111(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the letters of engagement were valid and binding contentious business agreements
- Payment of outstanding legal fees
- Taxation of bills
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for legal fees
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 230 | Singapore | Judgment related to Mr. Rai's application to be joined as a party to Suit 833 of 2020. |
| Unknown | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 291 | Singapore | Judgment related to Mr. Rai's application for the costs of two applications. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| s 111(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1966 | Singapore |
| Section 112(4) of the LPA | Singapore |
| Section 113(2) of the LPA | Singapore |
| Section 113(5) of the LPA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contentious business agreement
- Taxation of costs
- Legal fees
- Letter of engagement
- Disbursements
- Solicitor and client costs
- Ex-gratia payment
- Professional fees
15.2 Keywords
- Legal fees
- Taxation
- Contentious business agreement
- Singapore High Court
- Negligence suit
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Taxation of Legal Fees | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Legal Profession Act | 75 |
| Contentious Business Agreement | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Solicitor and Client Privilege | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Legal Fees
- Taxation