• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Lawyer , Ooi Oon Tat , Suspended 5 years for 'lackadaisical' conduct that caused client to lose Case -1 July 2022

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
1656690326105.png

Lawyer Ooi Oon Tat had failed to provide certain documents requested by the opposing side. PHOTO: OOI OON TAT/FACEBOOK
selinalum.png


Selina Lum
Senior Law Correspondent

Lawyer suspended 5 years for 'lackadaisical' conduct​

that caused client to lose case .​


SINGAPORE - As a result of his lawyer's "inaction and lackadaisical conduct",
what should have been a court victory for a taxi driver who was injured in an
accident turned into a complete defeat.

The lawyer, Mr Ooi Oon Tat, who was called to the Bar in 1989, had failed to
provide certain documents requested by the opposing side, which ultimately
resulted in his client's lawsuit being struck out.

On Friday (July 1), Mr Ooi was suspended for five years for his misconduct.

In suspending him, the Court of Three Judges, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,
said this was a deplorable case of a lawyer who was in "grave dereliction of duty to his client".

The court said Mr Ooi effectively destroyed his client's cause of action by failing to act on
his client's instructions and to provide the documents and failing to make good any of the
loss suffered by his client.

The client, cabby Lim See Meng, had sued the driver of a vehicle that crashed into the rear
of his taxi in 2012 for causing him to suffer chest discomfort and pain in the neck and ribs.

In November 2015, Mr Lim succeeded in obtaining an interlocutory judgment in which the
defendant accepted full responsibility for the accident.

The quantum of damages were to be assessed at a later hearing.

In June 2016, the defendant, Mr Chong Chun Siong, sought certain documents from Mr Lim.

Mr Lim provided some documents to Mr Ooi and reminded him by e-mail to expedite the matter.

But Mr Ooi did not send out those documents to Mr Chong's lawyers, even after his counterparts
obtained a court order for him to do so.

In January 2017, dissatisfied with how Mr Ooi was handling the suit, Mr Lim got another lawyer
to take over the case.

He then found out that the suit had been struck out.

Mr Lim then sued Mr Ooi for professional negligence.

In September last year, 2021, Mr Ooi was found liable to Mr Lim for damages of nearly $73,000
and costs of $15,000. He has yet to pay the sums.

Mr Lim also lodged a complaint with the Law Society against Mr Ooi.

In December last year, 2021, a disciplinary tribunal found Mr Ooi guilty of three misconduct charges.

The tribunal said Mr Ooi's "inaction and lackadaisical conduct" brought dishonour to the profession.

On Friday, 1 July 2022 , the Law Society, represented by Mr Adrian Wong, brought the case before the court,
which has the power to suspend or disbar lawyers.

Mr Ooi pleaded with it to impose a fine instead.

The court said: "The suggestion that a fine might be an appropriate sanction in this case reflected
an utter failure on the respondent's part to acknowledge the gravity of the misconduct on his part,
and for that matter of the degree of harm he had caused his own client."

The court noted that Mr Ooi has an antecedent for having failed to deposit client monies into the
appropriate account.
 

JohnTan

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
The client, cabby Lim See Meng, had sued the driver of a vehicle that crashed into the rear
of his taxi in 2012 for causing him to suffer chest discomfort and pain in the neck and ribs.

If my client was a pauper, I couldn't care less either. You want good service, pay better.
 

LexLuthor

Alfrescian
Loyal
Why did he not do what he was supposed to do ?

He had already won the case with an interlocutory judgment, and all that was required of him was only to deliver a document, and his client would be paid, and he, too, would have been paid.

It did not require any special skills to deliver a document to the Defendant's lawyer. So what was stopping him ?

So ST the next time when you report news, please remember to report the full news. KNN.
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Sounds like a lawyer who was bribed or blackmailed by the other side. If that's the case, don't be surprised if the Sinkie Law Society is covering up a can of worms. :cool:
 

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
The Truth be known,
the Accident Claims
/ insurance premiums
from it , is a Billion dollar
business in SG.
Controlled by a few players.
Suffice to say ,
It is a very very exclusive club.
Walk into the State Courts
on any typical court day and
you will find the same faces
there representing the Insurance
Companies and another set of same lawyers representing Plaintiffs/
Claimants...

this cycle just keep repeating itself...
 

shiokalingam

Alfrescian
Loyal
S T should do a piece on this Holy
Tripartite relationship.

Insurance Companies


Lawyers for Insurance Companies
..................................... Claimants Lawyers​
 
Last edited:
Top