[2013] SGHC 135 - Singapore Law Watch

Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju [2013] SGHC 135
done on the claim plus disbursements and applicable taxes. 8 Consequent to
the negotiated settlement, a release and discharge agreement (“the Settlement
Agreement”) was signed by the Complainant on 27 June 2011 9 and also by the
Respondent as a witness. Next to his signature, the Respondent affixed a
stamp with his name and designation as an Advocate and Solicitor. The
Complainant’s lawyers had done well. The total settlement sum (“the
Settlement Sum”) was A$3,250,000. The Respondent, who thought he stood to
get 40% of this recovery, plainly thought he had done exceedingly well for
himself. For a relatively modest outlay of time and money, he was looking to
recover a sum of around A$1,200,000.
14 In early July 2011, the Respondent spoke with the Complainant over
the telephone. He invited her to open a joint bank account in both their names
for the purpose of holding the Settlement Sum. The Respondent said that he
would withdraw his name from the account once he had received his 40%
share of the Settlement Sum. The Complainant discussed the Respondent’s
request with her mother and then decided that she would not accede to it. On
18 July 2011, Creevey Russell informed the Complainant’s mother that certain
documents dated 31 May 2011 needed to be signed by the Complainant so that
the Settlement Sum could be transferred from the insurer to Creevey Russell’s
trust account in Australia and from there to a bank account to be nominated by
the Complainant. The Complainant’s mother then realised that the documents
had been dispatched earlier by Creevey Russell to the Respondent and that he
had retained them. On 28 July 2011 she spoke to the Respondent and asked
him about this, and it was only then that he forwarded the documents to her.
8
9
RP vol 2 p 500.
RP vol 2 p 503.
8