<TABLE class=forumline border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=row1 vAlign=top width=150 align=left>Sharkula
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 16810
Location: Between The Devil & the Deep Blue Sea
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: Five lawyers sued over sale of house</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>A PRIVATE investigator is suing five lawyers for professional negligence over the sale of his house in 2002.
Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam, 62, alleged that they had mistakenly paid property agency ERA $28,000 as a commission.
He said in his affidavit that he found the buyer of the property. The agency, therefore, did not deserve any payment.
The lawyers he is suing are Ms Amarjit Kour, Mr Gregory Tang Wee Thiang, Ms Belinda Ang Choo Poh and Mr Peter Cuthbert Low of the now-defunct firm Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang. The firm represented his ex-wife Nee Shyam Huey in their May 1996 divorce.
The fifth lawyer he is suing is Mr Andrew John Hanam, who acted for him in the divorce.
The defence of the four lawyers is that they were hired by Madam Nee and not by Mr Suppiah, and thus owed him no professional obligation.
Mr Hanam is denying responsibility on the grounds that the sale of the Suppiahs' matrimonial home after the divorce was arranged by the other lawyers, so Mr Suppiah should refer to them to recover his losses.
Court documents showed that when Mr Suppiah defaulted in the divorce settlement, Madam Nee obtained a court order to sell the matrimonial home in Punggol.
She found a buyer for $1.6 million but Mr Suppiah objected because the price was too low. He then found a neighbour who was willing to pay $1.75 million.
He was expecting his share of the sales proceeds to reach $240,000, but received only $212,000 in July 2002.
When he discovered that a commission of $28,000 had been paid to the housing agent, he instructed Mr Hanam to write to the other lawyers to withhold payment. But it was too late.
At the opening of the civil suit yesterday, Mr Suppiah took the stand to tell his lawyer Alain A. Johns that despite the sale-and-purchase agreement, which did not authorise payment of the housing agent's commission, the five lawyers failed to protect his interest.
The hearing will continue next year.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 16810
Location: Between The Devil & the Deep Blue Sea
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: Five lawyers sued over sale of house</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>A PRIVATE investigator is suing five lawyers for professional negligence over the sale of his house in 2002. Mr Simon Suppiah Sunmugam, 62, alleged that they had mistakenly paid property agency ERA $28,000 as a commission.
He said in his affidavit that he found the buyer of the property. The agency, therefore, did not deserve any payment.
The lawyers he is suing are Ms Amarjit Kour, Mr Gregory Tang Wee Thiang, Ms Belinda Ang Choo Poh and Mr Peter Cuthbert Low of the now-defunct firm Peter Low Tang & Belinda Ang. The firm represented his ex-wife Nee Shyam Huey in their May 1996 divorce.
The fifth lawyer he is suing is Mr Andrew John Hanam, who acted for him in the divorce.
The defence of the four lawyers is that they were hired by Madam Nee and not by Mr Suppiah, and thus owed him no professional obligation.
Mr Hanam is denying responsibility on the grounds that the sale of the Suppiahs' matrimonial home after the divorce was arranged by the other lawyers, so Mr Suppiah should refer to them to recover his losses.
Court documents showed that when Mr Suppiah defaulted in the divorce settlement, Madam Nee obtained a court order to sell the matrimonial home in Punggol.
She found a buyer for $1.6 million but Mr Suppiah objected because the price was too low. He then found a neighbour who was willing to pay $1.75 million.
He was expecting his share of the sales proceeds to reach $240,000, but received only $212,000 in July 2002.
When he discovered that a commission of $28,000 had been paid to the housing agent, he instructed Mr Hanam to write to the other lawyers to withhold payment. But it was too late.
At the opening of the civil suit yesterday, Mr Suppiah took the stand to tell his lawyer Alain A. Johns that despite the sale-and-purchase agreement, which did not authorise payment of the housing agent's commission, the five lawyers failed to protect his interest.
The hearing will continue next year.
