Chitchat 2.26m Bankruptcy that started out as a simple suit.

[scroobal]

This is an interesting case not because it was complex but it does show that system allows the wanton waste of time and public resources and such a trivial matter over egos. The only ones that walked away with the big money was not even the plaintiffs of the original defamation suit who only got about $300K divided by 4 people . The rest of went to the lawyers - Tan Chee Meng, Hri Kumar amongst others.

Twice it went to high court, twice it went to Court of Appeal with CJ in attendance.

Now one donkey because of his wife's ego has been made bankrupt and faces $2.26m and he could not even afford a lawyer at the bankruptcy hearing. The Club and its silly members are not even going to see much of the money.

A court akin to the small claims court could have easily handled the case. The 4 clowns and the Club have not much standing in the first place. $10k in compensation would be more than sufficient to address their reputation.



http://news.asiaone.com/news/singap...ming-club-president-made-bankruptEx-Singapore Swimming Club president made bankrupt
Mr Koh owes the Singapore Swimming Club about $2.26 million. Among other things, he had used club funds to defend a defamation suit. Last month, he was also expelled from the club.

Photo: The Straits Times

Former president of the Singapore Swimming Club (SSC) Freddie Koh Sin Chong was made bankrupt yesterday for owing the club an estimated $2.26 million.

The amount comprises judgment debt, interest and costs.

The club filed a bankruptcy application against the 70-year-old last month for using club funds to defend a defamation suit.

Separately, Mr Koh has been expelled from the club after disciplinary proceedings held last month .

He was found guilty of five charges of breach of fiduciary duties with the intention of furthering his own interests rather than that of the club.

He had made the club pay for his legal expenses even after a judgment was passed by the Court of Appeal in a 2009 defamation suit.

He was also found guilty of two counts of breaching the code of conduct and ethics of the club.

Mr Koh had owed $1.52 million to the club after the apex court overturned a High Court decision last year, which rejected the club's bid to recover the money used by him in his unsuccessful defence of the defamation suit.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the club was entitled to a refund on the grounds of Mr Koh's breach of fiduciary duties, as well as how the club had paid his legal bills under a mistaken belief that he was discharging his duties to the club.

Mr Koh became club president in May 2008. He was ousted at an extraordinary general meeting in March 2012.

He was unrepresented at yesterday's bankruptcy hearing.

The club was represented by WongPartnership

- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singap...-president-made-bankrupt#sthash.8bJTqvW7.dpuf

 

[halsey02]

Confirm, this one voted for the PAP...has the typical characteristic.....

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

Confirm, this one voted for the PAP...has the typical characteristic.....

Mr Freddie Koh Sin Chong owes the Singapore Swimming Club about $2.26 million. Among other things, he had used club funds to defend a defamation suit. Last month, he was also expelled from the club.ST FILE PHOTO:

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

Confirm, this one voted for the PAP...has the typical characteristic.....

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspa...ie&sessionid=91f49090add343489854f013bc99978c

 

[halsey02]

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspa...ie&sessionid=91f49090add343489854f013bc99978c

To use local language...." double confirm"...PAP voter!

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

To use local language...." double confirm"...PAP voter!

Ex Alpa-S Pres then i worry

 

[numero uno]

This is an interesting case not because it was complex but it does show that system allows the wanton waste of time and public resources and such a trivial matter over egos. The only ones that walked away with the big money was not even the plaintiffs of the original defamation suit who only got about $300K divided by 4 people . The rest of went to the lawyers - Tan Chee Meng, Hri Kumar amongst others.

Twice it went to high court, twice it went to Court of Appeal with CJ in attendance.

Now one donkey because of his wife's ego has been made bankrupt and faces $2.26m and he could not even afford a lawyer at the bankruptcy hearing. The Club and its silly members are not even going to see much of the money.

A court akin to the small claims court could have easily handled the case. The 4 clowns and the Club have not much standing in the first place. $10k in compensation would be more than sufficient to address their reputation.



http://news.asiaone.com/news/singap...ming-club-president-made-bankruptEx-Singapore Swimming Club president made bankrupt
Mr Koh owes the Singapore Swimming Club about $2.26 million. Among other things, he had used club funds to defend a defamation suit. Last month, he was also expelled from the club.

Photo: The Straits Times

Former president of the Singapore Swimming Club (SSC) Freddie Koh Sin Chong was made bankrupt yesterday for owing the club an estimated $2.26 million.

The amount comprises judgment debt, interest and costs.

The club filed a bankruptcy application against the 70-year-old last month for using club funds to defend a defamation suit.

Separately, Mr Koh has been expelled from the club after disciplinary proceedings held last month .

He was found guilty of five charges of breach of fiduciary duties with the intention of furthering his own interests rather than that of the club.

He had made the club pay for his legal expenses even after a judgment was passed by the Court of Appeal in a 2009 defamation suit.

He was also found guilty of two counts of breaching the code of conduct and ethics of the club.

Mr Koh had owed $1.52 million to the club after the apex court overturned a High Court decision last year, which rejected the club's bid to recover the money used by him in his unsuccessful defence of the defamation suit.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the club was entitled to a refund on the grounds of Mr Koh's breach of fiduciary duties, as well as how the club had paid his legal bills under a mistaken belief that he was discharging his duties to the club.

Mr Koh became club president in May 2008. He was ousted at an extraordinary general meeting in March 2012.

He was unrepresented at yesterday's bankruptcy hearing.

The club was represented by WongPartnership

- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/singap...-president-made-bankrupt#sthash.8bJTqvW7.dpuf

that's why I sold off all my club memberships -5-6 years ago as I have an inkling all these bastards would abuse the club funds in cahoot with the lawyers to enrich themselves. end of day such a trivial matter what to talk about honour??? farkers are shit. heard r from reliable sources every club got disputes. sometimes the defendants and the plaintiffs are in cahoot!!!!!! seems qite a few cases already. works like these . the defendant usually is a high office bearer cum businessman, makes intentional some statement to defame someone while in position, and his friends(who are theo ones maligned) who are ordinary club members sue him and he use the club money to pay the lawyers as dragged on and on and appeals non-stop till the club kicjks him out. No loss to him as he is already near bankrupt in personal finance and just declare bankrupt. the club money is used to pay off the lawyers and in turn otehrs(indirectly). also end of day he receives kickback(secretly). end of day all wins and the ordianry club members loses as everyone contribute to tis scam by paying more memberships yearly fees . just like stage car accidents!!!! think about it

 

[scroobal]

Nearly all Clubs including Tanglin have seen members taking defamation against one another for years.There were even lawsuits over golf handicaps. All these clubs should require members to settle their differences within a Club arbitration system. 90% of the time its due to ego and spouses.

Singapore Swimming Club record for this is well known for years. They even had the place run by a GM who had false qualifications. This is also the club where the spouses are very involved as other clubs are typically men's sports and drinking club in focus.

that's why I sold off all my club memberships -5-6 years ago as I have an inkling all these bastards would abuse the club funds in cahoot with the lawyers to enrich themselves. end of day such a trivial matter what to talk about honour??? farkers are shit. heard r from reliable sources every club got disputes. sometimes the defendants and the plaintiffs are in cahoot!!!!!! seems qite a few cases already. works like these . the defendant usually is a high office bearer cum businessman, makes intentional some statement to defame someone while in position, and his friends(who are theo ones maligned) who are ordinary club members sue him and he use the club money to pay the lawyers as dragged on and on and appeals non-stop till the club kicjks him out. No loss to him as he is already near bankrupt in personal finance and just declare bankrupt. the club money is used to pay off the lawyers and in turn otehrs(indirectly). also end of day he receives kickback(secretly). end of day all wins and the ordianry club members loses as everyone contribute to tis scam by paying more memberships yearly fees . just like stage car accidents!!!! think about it

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

Singapore Swimming Club has come a long way since 7 February 1894 when it was operating from a rented attap hut. Today it is the nation's largest non-golfing recreational club equipped with every modern facility.

http://www.sswimclub.org.sg/about/committee.html





The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 & the advent of steamers resulted in a travel revolution. The small port founded by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, developed into a thriving trading centre, and the everyday life of the British settlement had become more sophisticated, and exclusively European.

In October 1865, "forty good men and true" convened a meeting for the purpose of forming a suburban social club to meet the wants of the British living in the settlement, and founded The Tanglin Club. A property in the District of Claymore was purchased in 1866 and this is the current site of The Tanglin Club today.

Today, The Tanglin Club is one of Singapore's oldest & prominent social clubs. It is not known how the name 'Tanglin' originated but as there are many places in Malaysia named after trees, it is possible that The Tanglin Club was named after the Saraca Tree aka 'Tanglin Tree'. A commemorative Tanglin Tree was planted in the grounds of the present clubhouse in 1990 to mark the Club's 125th anniversary.


http://www.tanglinclub.org.sg/about/committees.html

 

[scroobal]

Thanks Coffee, you always find the good stuff. I never realised that these clubs were that old.

Singapore Swimming Club has come a long way since 7 February 1894 when it was operating from a rented attap hut. Today it is the nation's largest non-golfing recreational club equipped with every modern facility.

http://www.sswimclub.org.sg/about/committee.html





The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 & the advent of steamers resulted in a travel revolution. The small port founded by Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, developed into a thriving trading centre, and the everyday life of the British settlement had become more sophisticated, and exclusively European.

In October 1865, "forty good men and true" convened a meeting for the purpose of forming a suburban social club to meet the wants of the British living in the settlement, and founded The Tanglin Club. A property in the District of Claymore was purchased in 1866 and this is the current site of The Tanglin Club today.

Today, The Tanglin Club is one of Singapore's oldest & prominent social clubs. It is not known how the name 'Tanglin' originated but as there are many places in Malaysia named after trees, it is possible that The Tanglin Club was named after the Saraca Tree aka 'Tanglin Tree'. A commemorative Tanglin Tree was planted in the grounds of the present clubhouse in 1990 to mark the Club's 125th anniversary.


http://www.tanglinclub.org.sg/about/committees.html

 

[Hans168]

our system stinks ........ there is NO justification for assholes lawyers to be earning so much when laymen as smart n qualified as they are, if not more, earn realistic wages

only becos the lawyers protect their own turf from Law Ministers to CJ to AG and all the big law firm bosses!!

can anyone justify the absurd fees they earn when doing a simple property transaction ....... most of legwork done by clerk and they just sign,
the higher the property is valued, the higher the fees,,,,,,,,, when the little wiork to be done by their clerk is samewhy can competition be introduced as in UK by roping in accountantant to privude same service at much lower price>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?????????????????????////

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

our system stinks ........ there is NO justification for assholes lawyers to be earning so much when laymen as smart n qualified as they are, if not more, earn realistic wages

only becos the lawyers protect their own turf from Law Ministers to CJ to AG and all the big law firm bosses!!

can anyone justify the absurd fees they earn when doing a simple property transaction ....... most of legwork done by clerk and they just sign,
the higher the property is valued, the higher the fees,,,,,,,,, when the little wiork to be done by their clerk is samewhy can competition be introduced as in UK by roping in accountantant to privude same service at much lower price>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?????????????????????////

Sir, is it a case of Misconduct or is it a case of Corruption ??? thanks











Misconduct case against lawyer before Apex court

PUBLISHEDAUG 7, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT



He is accused of agreeing to take cut of damages in lieu of legal fees in medical negligence suit
K.C. VijayanSenior Law Correspondent
A lawyer who agreed to a contingency fee arrangement with a client over a medical negligence suit will face the top court for professional misconduct following a disciplinary probe.

Contingency fees - whereby a cut of any damages awarded in a suit are paid to the lawyer instead of a legal fee - are prohibited in Singapore.

But Mr Jeffrey Lau See Jin, who began practice in 1991, was found liable for arranging an oral contingency fee pact after a hearing in March by a disciplinary tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.


The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim and lawyer Carrie Seow, found the charge sufficiently serious to refer it to the Court of Three Judges.

The tribunal, in its report released on Aug 1, said: "Where a lawyer agrees to take a direct cut of the damages or the claim amount, he acquires a direct interest in the litigation and this mode of charging forms the very rationale of the rule against contingency fees. His fees cannot be a direct function of the damages awarded in the claim."

PROHIBITED IN SINGAPORE

Where a lawyer agrees to take a direct cut of the damages or the claim amount, he acquires a direct interest in the litigation and this mode of charging forms the very rationale of the rule against contingency fees. ''



TRIBUNAL REPORT

Ms Serene Ng, the complainant, had been suffering from suspected severe asthma and was unhappy with the conflicting advice and treatment given by two different groups of doctors consulted.

She met Mr Lau through a mutual friend, Mr Steven Lee, in 2014 who suggested that she offer a cut of the damages to Mr Lau, according to her. She took Mr Lee's advice but did not know then that contingency fees are prohibited in Singapore.

At an April 2014 meeting with Mr Lau, she offered a 15 per cent cut of the damages awarded if she won but he counter-offered 20 per cent and sought a greater share if he won more than $5 million in damages.

Mr Lau, defended by lawyer Chandra Mohan K. Nair, disputed her version and denied there was an agreement on fees at the April 4, 2014 meeting, explaining he had told her then his charges ranged between 20 and 25 per cent of the claim amount.

The tribunal found the complainant to be credible and her subsequent actions "entirely consistent". While she was " forthcoming, honest and direct in her answers", Mr Lau was "unreliable as a witness as various aspects of his evidence were troubling and internally inconsistent".

Lawyers S. Ramesh and Ivan Lim, in prosecuting for the Law Society, argued that Mr Lau did not take any notes at the meeting because he knew he was entering into an illegal pact and did not want a record.

"Having regard to all these matters, we completely disbelieve" Mr Lau's testimony on what he told the complainant, the tribunal said. He was ordered to pay costs. The apex court hearing will be fixed in due course.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Sunday Times on August 07, 2016, with the headline 'Misconduct case against lawyer before apex court'. Print Edition | Subscribe

 

[borom]

That's why they say the top sets the tone.

Who do you think sets the tone of taking legal suits against people critical of them?
It has gone down to even Condo MC level, where Chairman of a condo MC took legal action against his own condo members critical of him .

So which quote is true "Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." OR

''Fiat iustitia ruat cælum" (Let justice be done, though the heavens fall)
.

 

[scroobal]

Agree. each of the plaintiffs took back only $50k and had to cough up some cost due to an issue during the appeal process. The Lawyers earned at least 10 times more. Ridiculous.

our system stinks ........ there is NO justification for assholes lawyers to be earning so much when laymen as smart n qualified as they are, if not more, earn realistic wages

only becos the lawyers protect their own turf from Law Ministers to CJ to AG and all the big law firm bosses!!

can anyone justify the absurd fees they earn when doing a simple property transaction ....... most of legwork done by clerk and they just sign,
the higher the property is valued, the higher the fees,,,,,,,,, when the little wiork to be done by their clerk is samewhy can competition be introduced as in UK by roping in accountantant to privude same service at much lower price>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?????????????????????////

 

[scroobal]

Its misconduct. Sometime clients agree when they have no money even thought they know that contingency fee though allowed in many countries are not allowed here.

Sir, is it a case of Misconduct or is it a case of Corruption ??? thanks


Misconduct case against lawyer before Apex court

PUBLISHEDAUG 7, 2016, 5:00 AM SGT



He is accused of agreeing to take cut of damages in lieu of legal fees in medical negligence suit
K.C. VijayanSenior Law Correspondent
A lawyer who agreed to a contingency fee arrangement with a client over a medical negligence suit will face the top court for professional misconduct following a disciplinary probe.

Contingency fees - whereby a cut of any damages awarded in a suit are paid to the lawyer instead of a legal fee - are prohibited in Singapore.

But Mr Jeffrey Lau See Jin, who began practice in 1991, was found liable for arranging an oral contingency fee pact after a hearing in March by a disciplinary tribunal appointed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon.


The tribunal, comprising Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim and lawyer Carrie Seow, found the charge sufficiently serious to refer it to the Court of Three Judges.

The tribunal, in its report released on Aug 1, said: "Where a lawyer agrees to take a direct cut of the damages or the claim amount, he acquires a direct interest in the litigation and this mode of charging forms the very rationale of the rule against contingency fees. His fees cannot be a direct function of the damages awarded in the claim."

PROHIBITED IN SINGAPORE

Where a lawyer agrees to take a direct cut of the damages or the claim amount, he acquires a direct interest in the litigation and this mode of charging forms the very rationale of the rule against contingency fees. ''



TRIBUNAL REPORT

Ms Serene Ng, the complainant, had been suffering from suspected severe asthma and was unhappy with the conflicting advice and treatment given by two different groups of doctors consulted.

She met Mr Lau through a mutual friend, Mr Steven Lee, in 2014 who suggested that she offer a cut of the damages to Mr Lau, according to her. She took Mr Lee's advice but did not know then that contingency fees are prohibited in Singapore.

At an April 2014 meeting with Mr Lau, she offered a 15 per cent cut of the damages awarded if she won but he counter-offered 20 per cent and sought a greater share if he won more than $5 million in damages.

Mr Lau, defended by lawyer Chandra Mohan K. Nair, disputed her version and denied there was an agreement on fees at the April 4, 2014 meeting, explaining he had told her then his charges ranged between 20 and 25 per cent of the claim amount.

The tribunal found the complainant to be credible and her subsequent actions "entirely consistent". While she was " forthcoming, honest and direct in her answers", Mr Lau was "unreliable as a witness as various aspects of his evidence were troubling and internally inconsistent".

Lawyers S. Ramesh and Ivan Lim, in prosecuting for the Law Society, argued that Mr Lau did not take any notes at the meeting because he knew he was entering into an illegal pact and did not want a record.

"Having regard to all these matters, we completely disbelieve" Mr Lau's testimony on what he told the complainant, the tribunal said. He was ordered to pay costs. The apex court hearing will be fixed in due course.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Sunday Times on August 07, 2016, with the headline 'Misconduct case against lawyer before apex court'. Print Edition | Subscribe

 

[scroobal]

Yes, monkey see, monkey do.

That's why they say the top sets the tone.

Who do you think sets the tone of taking legal suits against people critical of them?
It has gone down to even Condo MC level, where Chairman of a condo MC took legal action against his own condo members .

So which quote is true "Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." OR

''Fiat iustitia ruat cælum" (Let justice be done, though the heavens fall)
.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Its misconduct. Sometime clients agree when they have no money even thought they know that contingency fee though allowed in many countries are not allowed here.

Contingency fee should be the same as champerty. Hoh Law is well-known among foreign blue-collar workers as the law firm to go to when one is injured at work sites.

In the recent past, Hoh Law had many agents (locals and FT) to act as middlemen and paid these agents referral fees to entice them.

 

[shiokalingam]

Contingency fee should be the same as champerty. Hoh Law is well-known among foreign blue-collar workers as the law firm to go to when one is injured at work sites.

In the recent past, Hoh Law had many agents (locals and FT) to act as middlemen and paid these agents referral fees to entice them.

Bro gh i know a ft worker just sustained a broken right hand. Roughly how much referral fee i can receive ???

Whats the market rate for per case per fee ?

 

[GoldenDragon]

Bro gh i know a ft worker just sustained a broken right hand. Roughly how much referral fee i can receive ???

Whats the market rate for per case per fee ?

Minimum you get is $500. The lawyer will make an assessment of the case. If no pau jiak, he will reject.

Lawyer/law firm will have to advance money for injured worker to send home. When on m/c, it is usually no pay. So pocket money has to be advanced to injured worker. Try Hoh Law. Most other mid-sized law firms will avoid such cases.

 

[shiokalingam]

Minimum you get is $500. The lawyer will make an assessment of the case. If no pau jiak, he will reject.

Lawyer/law firm will have to advance money for injured worker to send home. When on m/c, it is usually no pay. So pocket money has to be advanced to injured worker. Try Hoh Law. Most other mid-sized law firms will avoid such cases.

Wahh...$500 veri good. Tks.