Lawyers negligence - Chong Yeo and Partners

An old case involving lawyers' negligence is the case of Chong Yeo and Partners v Guan Ming Hardware and Engineering Pte Ltd.

Here, the solicitors failed to file certain documents in relation to a summary judgment application (a type of proceeding where the plaintiffs claim that the case against the defendant is clear and the defendant should be ordered to pay up without further legal proceedings) against their clients' debtor. This failure led to a delay in the proceedings. The debtor soon after went into liquidation.

The clients then sued the solicitors for the delay. However, the court held that although there was negligence, it was not proven that the negligence led to the loss. Even if there was no delay in the hearing of the summary judgment proceeding, there was no proof that the debtor would have been able to pay up.

This case once again shows the difficulty of claiming one's loss from one's professional advisers even where they are negligent. To be fair, we cannot make professional advisers liable for all losses - the losses must be proved to be caused by their negligence.

Professional negligence - hardest profession to sue

What is the most difficult profession to sue in Singapore?

I am no expert in this area but talking to experienced lawyers, it seems that the consensus is that doctors are the most difficult to sue. Why?

In order to prove professional negligence, you have to show that the professional was careless in some way. Almost always, this means hiring someone else who is respected and in the same profession to come to court to testify. This expert will then have to point out the mistakes of the defendant professional.

It is extremely difficult to hire one doctor to point out the mistakes of another doctor in court. Perhaps this is because the profession here is small and closely knit. Result - expensive doctors have to be consulted from overseas, and if necessary, flown to Singapore for preparation as well as for the trial. A big legal bill is likely to be the result.

Negligence case - Robertson Quay v Steen Consultants

The 2008 Court of Appeal case of Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd was an interesting case not on complicated issues of negligence but on the issue of loss.

Here, Steen Consultants were employed by Robertson Quay to provide civil and structural engineering services for the construction of the Gallery Hotel. However,Steen Consultants made a blunder - they submitted an old set of structural drawings to the building contractor instead of the latest updated set. As a result, there was a delay of 101 days in the completion of construction of the Hotel.

Steen Consultants admitted their legal responsibility and in court, it was only up to Robertson Quay to prove their loss. The latter made claims for management fees, consulting fees, staff salaries and interest on shareholders' loans during the delay period.

A major problem was that the latter was not able to prove that the interest expense incurred during the delay period was not proven in court. The court held that Robertson Quay should have showed that if there was no error by Steen Consultants, then the interest expense would not have been incurred.

This issue of causation is often overlooked by claimants. It is not enough to show that you incurred some costs. You must show that if there was no professional negligence, this cost would not have been incurred and therefore the defendant is responsible for this loss.

The Court of Appeal (Singapore's highest court) in 2007 was the scene of 2 major cases against auditors for negligence in relation to statutory audit reports. In both cases, the Court found

These cases are -

1. PlanAssure PAC v Gaelic Inn Pte Ltd and
   
2. JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong.

In both cases, the Court found that the auditors were negligent but in each case, the client company was also found to be contributorily negligent for the fraud of its officers. The result of this is that the auditors were not liable to pay for the entire loss caused.

The issue of contributory negligence and also the facts of these 2 cases will be examined shortly.

AIM AND INTRODUCTION

This blog aims to cover the area of professional negligence in Singapore from a legal perspective.

It will have the following

1. general comments on the law of professional negligence
2. summaries of local or interesting foreign cases on the area
   
3. updates of local court proceedings related to this topic.

INVITATION - If you are involved in any lawsuit involving professional negligence, you are welcome to submit a short summary of the parties and the allegations made in addition to the suit number.



DISCLAIMER - This blog is only intended to offer information and not legal advice. We accept no liability for any reliance on the information contained here, and advise you to contact your own legal advisers where necessary.