[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135 least elsewhere, has been to permit certain species of champertous agreements with this objective. For instance, England and parts of Australia have reformed their laws to permit conditional fee agreements. Indeed (though neither counsel drew this to our attention) just days before we heard the arguments in this matter, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, had delivered the first Harbour Litigation Funding Annual Lecture entitled “From Barretry, Maintenance and Champerty to Litigation Funding”, in which he touched on some of these issues. 30 Mr Rajah pointed to official pronouncements in Parliament as evidence that Singapore too was concerned with the need to preserve access to justice for those unable to afford legal representation but who, at the same time, were unable to qualify for legal aid. Mr Rajah further relied on the fact that in the present case, the Champertous Agreement did not pervert the course of justice in Singapore at all. On the contrary, it was likely that if the Complainant had not entered into the Champertous Agreement, she would not have been able to mount a claim in Australia as she could not otherwise have afforded the expense. The Champertous Agreement was therefore the key factor that enabled the Complainant actually to recover compensation for her injuries. In that sense, according to Mr Rajah, the Respondent had in fact enabled the Complainant to access justice. 31 We were also urged to have regard to the mitigating factors which the Inquiry Committee had recognised and which we have set out (at [21] above). 32 Mr Rajah accepted that because the Champertous Agreement was akin to a financial gamble on the likely outcome of the Complainant’s claim and because of the potential for abuse manifested in the Respondent’s conduct to which we have referred (at [25(c)] above), a fine alone would not be an 18
Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135 appropriate sanction. Mr Rajah submitted that a suspension from practice for a period of between three and six months would be appropriate. He observed that this would be comparable to the suspension of three months imposed by this court in Law Society of Singapore v Ang Chin Peng and another [2013] 1 SLR 946, a case of gross overcharging where the respondents had made misrepresentations to their clients and where their conduct was found to have bordered on dishonesty. Our Decision Liability 33 The Second Charge was for a breach of s 107(1)(b) read with s 107(3) of the Act. These provisions read as follows: Prohibition of certain stipulations 107.—(1) No solicitor shall — ... (a) purchase or agree to purchase the interest or any part of the interest of his client or of any party in any suit, action or other contentious proceeding brought or to be brought or maintained; or (b) enter into any agreement by which he is retained or employed to prosecute any suit or action or other contentious proceeding which stipulates for or contemplates payment only in the event of success in that suit, action or proceeding. (3) A solicitor shall, notwithstanding any provision of this Act, be subject to the law of maintenance and champerty like any other person. 34 In a similar vein, r 37 of the Professional Conduct Rules states: Contingency fees prohibited 37. An advocate and solicitor shall not enter into any negotiations with a client — 19
Page 1 and 2: This judgment is subject to final e
Page 3 and 4: Law Society of Singapore v Kurubala
Page 17: Law Society of Singapore v Kurubala
Page 45: Law Society of Singapore v Kurubala

[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?