[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
Complainant was worried about the cost that might have to be incurred in
bringing the action. The Respondent sent her some material on possible costsharing
arrangements, including material on speculative fee agreements, which
appeared to have assuaged her concerns and in the event convinced her to
mount a claim.
8 On 24 April 2006, the Respondent and the Complainant signed a
written agreement (“the Champertous Agreement”) that became the subject of
this application. The agreement reads in full: 2
In the matter of motor vehicle accident on 5 th July 2003 in
Brisbane, Australia, the said HO SHIN HWEE sustained
Personal Injury.
It is hereby agreed that R.Kurubalan will act on his personal
capacity in this matter and not has [sic] an advocate and
solicitor of Singapore nor is the firm Kuru & co be [sic] in
conduct of the matter.
We refer to our acknowledgement relating to this matter dated
24/04/06. 3
Given the unique circumstances of this case, we hereby
authorise Mr. Kurubalan to act on his personal capacity. As
the accident happened in Queensland, Australia I/we
acknowledge that this agreement will be governed by the Laws
of Queensland, Australia.
We authorise him irrevocably to engage an Australian Lawyer
or himself in his capacity as a lawyer enrolled in Queensland
to conduct this matter.
We agree that:-
1. That we will not be liable for any cost unless the claim is
successful.
2
3
RP vol 1 p 101.
RP vol 1 p 100.
4