[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
(b) He alleged that the Complainant had made a prior claim for the
same incident from insurers in Singapore. As a result, the Settlement
Agreement might be invalidated in which case the Complainant would
be responsible for legal fees and disbursements.
(c) He said that he would institute proceedings in Australia for his
fees and mentioned that she could end up facing a criminal charge of
cheating notwithstanding that the benefits were obtained overseas.
(d) Finally, he said he would “proceed with the necessary action
without further reference” to the Complainant if he did not hear from her
within eight days.
17 On 9 October 2011, the Respondent issued under his firm’s letterhead
his bill of professional costs in connection with the Complainant’s claim. The
bill, which was sent to Creevey Russell, was for S$138,550 in respect of
professional costs charged at S$500 an hour and a further sum for expenses
and disbursements giving a total amount of S$156,487, or A$123,599. 13 By
this time, Creevey Russell was not in a position to pay this since the firm had
already disbursed the Settlement Sum, less its own fees and disbursements, to
the Complainant. In the meantime, on 21 October 2011, the Respondent sent
an e-mail to the Complainant pressing for payment of his share of the
Settlement Sum. On 26 October 2011, the Respondent again e-mailed the
Complainant and her mother and set a deadline of 5 pm on 3 November 2011
for the transfer of funds to be made, failing which he said that he would
“proceed in the manner I deem fit”. On 27 October 2011, the Complainant,
13
RP vol 2 p 526.
10