[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
thought he was entitled and we did not think such behaviour could be regarded
as demonstrative of remorse even taking into account the Respondent’s plea of
guilt before the Disciplinary Tribunal.
59 But aside from these considerations, one issue that did feature
prominently in the oral arguments was the significance of the fact that the
Champertous Agreement was an agreement in respect of litigation in
Queensland and not one in respect of litigation here. Section 325(1) of the
Queensland Legal Profession Act 2007 states:
A law practice must not enter into a costs agreement under
which the amount payable to the law practice, or any part of
that amount, is calculated by reference to the amount of any
award or settlement or the value of any property that may be
recovered in any proceedings to which the agreement relates.
There is thus a prohibition on such arrangements in Queensland. However, the
maximum penalty is stated to be 100 penalty units which at a rate of A$75 per
unit points to a maximum fine of A$7,500. It thus appeared that if a
Queensland solicitor had entered into a fee agreement such as the
Champertous Agreement for the purposes of litigation in Queensland, he or
she would have faced a relatively minor fine. Mr Rajah argued that in these
circumstances, a more lenient view should be taken of the Respondent’s
conduct especially since there was little basis to contend that Singapore’s
public policy had been engaged in this case: no proceedings were
contemplated here and there was therefore never a risk of any affront to the
administration of justice in Singapore.
60 In our judgment, champertous conduct does not cease to be wrong
even where the litigation in question proceeds in a foreign court. The
following passage from Otech Pakistan at [38] is instructive:
32