[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
Singapore will have to be bourne [sic]. Given that there are
number of doctors involved and varying levels of seniority the
cost can be prohibitive.
5. As to date, there is no Australian law firm agreeable to
share cost with Singapore law firm. Their reason being that
their regulations does not allow for cost sharing with an
overseas firm. We are advised that a solicitor in Brisbane will
have to appoint a Barristor [sic] to conduct the matter.
6. We have been considering the various above factors and
have held back our instructions till 24 April 06. We
acknowledge that apart from not meeting reporting timeline of
9 months or one month of seeing a lawyer, the time bar on
commencing the action is only two months at this point in
time...
7. Given the above constraints and time limits Kuru & Co as
solicitors will be officially on record only for the purpose
notifying the Insurance Bureau. The firm will not be involved
thereafter. The firm will not be charging for work done to date
in the interest of goodwill except for disbursements.
10 On same day ie 24 April 2006, the Complainant executed a second
Warrant to Act 4 authorising and appointing the Respondent’s firm to act for
her in relation to the motor incident.
11 It will be noted that the Champertous Agreement states that the
Respondent was to act in his personal capacity and that his firm was not to
conduct the matter. This was curious to say the least. It is plain that the
Respondent expected to be remunerated for his efforts. It was not the case that
he was taking this on as a personal favour rather than as a professional
undertaking. In fact, the only explanation for the inclusion of these words in
the Champertous Agreement is that the Respondent was seeking to maintain
that he was not being engaged in his capacity as an Advocate and Solicitor.
But whether this is so is ultimately a question of fact which must be resolved
4
RP vol 1 p 102.
6