http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,209001,00.html?
HE is not a taxi driver and has never driven a cab in his life.
Yet he was cited and sued for a road accident claim that named him as the driver of a Comfort taxi.
The writ of summons had his name, NRIC number and home address.
Mr Anthony Foo, an administrator with Singapore Press Holdings, was shocked when a representative from Nanyang Law turned up at his doorstep and delivered the writ on 5 Jul.
It was around 5pm on a Sunday, and he was watching TV. He said: 'Someone knocked on my gate and asked for me and said he has a writ of summons for me. I was surprised to hear that.
SURPRISE: Mr Foo, who doesn't even have a taxi driver vocational licence, and a copy of the writ of summons he received. TNP PICTURE: DESMOND NG
'I don't have a taxi driver vocational licence and have never been a taxi driver.'
Mr Foo said his family members were also taken aback because they know he has never been a taxi driver.
The writ contained a statement of claim which described an incident which took place between a Smart taxi and a Comfort taxi at Holland Village on 8 Nov last year.
The Comfort taxi had stopped next to the Smart taxi to let a passenger alight.
The passenger opened the rear left door of the taxi and hit the front right door of the Smart taxi, causing damage.
Mr Foo was named as the driver of the Comfort taxi.
The driver of the Smart taxi wanted to claim about $3,300 from Mr Foo for repair costs, loss of rent and income for three days.
Mr Foo was bewildered when he read the writ.
Apology
The law firm has since called him to apologise.
He said he tried to explain to the representative of the law firm that he was not the person involved, but to no avail.
Mr Foo, who is married with two daughters aged 14 and 16, said he was told to take up the matter with the law firm.
As long as a person is personally served a writ of summons, it comes into effect whether that person signs it or not.
Mr Foo has a driving licence but doesn't own a car.
'On the day of the incident, I was working in the office,' he said. He worked until 1pm in his office in the Kallang area that day.
The accident occurred at 1.05pm at Holland Village.
Not knowing what to do, Mr Foo made a police report two days after the writ was served. He said he was told to go to the Subordinate Courts to clarify the matter.
He then called Nanyang Law, which had issued the writ.
He said a lawyer, Mr Ismail Atan, called him the following week to apologise for the mix-up.
According to Mr Foo, the lawyer said Mr Foo's name was taken from a construction company that Mr Foo and his brother own.
But the lawyer didn't explain why they checked with the construction company, said Mr Foo.
Mr Foo's account of what the lawyer said could not be verified with the law firm because it has not responded to queries from The New Paper that were sent more than two weeks ago.
The law firm, which represented the Smart cab company, also sent him a letter last week explaining that it had withdrawn the suit.
It is still unclear how the mistake occurred and why Mr Foo was implicated in the claim.
A lawyer we spoke to, who declined to be named, thinks it's bizarre that such a mistake could have occurred.
One possibility was that the taxi driver shared the same name as Mr Foo. The law firm ran an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) search on that name and got his details from there since he was named as a shareholder of a company.
It is likely that the law firm was unable to get the taxi driver's name from the taxi company, which is not obliged to release such information.
So the law firm may have had to do the Acra search, the lawyer said.
He felt Mr Foo should demand a letter from the law firm saying it was a mistake on its part and it had no basis to sue him.
Said the lawyer: 'If you're being sued, the record is permanent. Even if the suit is withdrawn, the record will still stand.
'So if this man (Mr Foo) tries to apply for a credit card or a bank loan in the future, the banks may reject his applications because of the suit.'
Mr Foo's record may be struck out from the court file if he gets a law firm to apply to the court to do so.
But he would incur legal fees in the process.
HE is not a taxi driver and has never driven a cab in his life.
Yet he was cited and sued for a road accident claim that named him as the driver of a Comfort taxi.
The writ of summons had his name, NRIC number and home address.
Mr Anthony Foo, an administrator with Singapore Press Holdings, was shocked when a representative from Nanyang Law turned up at his doorstep and delivered the writ on 5 Jul.
It was around 5pm on a Sunday, and he was watching TV. He said: 'Someone knocked on my gate and asked for me and said he has a writ of summons for me. I was surprised to hear that.
SURPRISE: Mr Foo, who doesn't even have a taxi driver vocational licence, and a copy of the writ of summons he received. TNP PICTURE: DESMOND NG
'I don't have a taxi driver vocational licence and have never been a taxi driver.'
Mr Foo said his family members were also taken aback because they know he has never been a taxi driver.
The writ contained a statement of claim which described an incident which took place between a Smart taxi and a Comfort taxi at Holland Village on 8 Nov last year.
The Comfort taxi had stopped next to the Smart taxi to let a passenger alight.
The passenger opened the rear left door of the taxi and hit the front right door of the Smart taxi, causing damage.
Mr Foo was named as the driver of the Comfort taxi.
The driver of the Smart taxi wanted to claim about $3,300 from Mr Foo for repair costs, loss of rent and income for three days.
Mr Foo was bewildered when he read the writ.
Apology
The law firm has since called him to apologise.
He said he tried to explain to the representative of the law firm that he was not the person involved, but to no avail.
Mr Foo, who is married with two daughters aged 14 and 16, said he was told to take up the matter with the law firm.
As long as a person is personally served a writ of summons, it comes into effect whether that person signs it or not.
Mr Foo has a driving licence but doesn't own a car.
'On the day of the incident, I was working in the office,' he said. He worked until 1pm in his office in the Kallang area that day.
The accident occurred at 1.05pm at Holland Village.
Not knowing what to do, Mr Foo made a police report two days after the writ was served. He said he was told to go to the Subordinate Courts to clarify the matter.
He then called Nanyang Law, which had issued the writ.
He said a lawyer, Mr Ismail Atan, called him the following week to apologise for the mix-up.
According to Mr Foo, the lawyer said Mr Foo's name was taken from a construction company that Mr Foo and his brother own.
But the lawyer didn't explain why they checked with the construction company, said Mr Foo.
Mr Foo's account of what the lawyer said could not be verified with the law firm because it has not responded to queries from The New Paper that were sent more than two weeks ago.
The law firm, which represented the Smart cab company, also sent him a letter last week explaining that it had withdrawn the suit.
It is still unclear how the mistake occurred and why Mr Foo was implicated in the claim.
A lawyer we spoke to, who declined to be named, thinks it's bizarre that such a mistake could have occurred.
One possibility was that the taxi driver shared the same name as Mr Foo. The law firm ran an Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) search on that name and got his details from there since he was named as a shareholder of a company.
It is likely that the law firm was unable to get the taxi driver's name from the taxi company, which is not obliged to release such information.
So the law firm may have had to do the Acra search, the lawyer said.
He felt Mr Foo should demand a letter from the law firm saying it was a mistake on its part and it had no basis to sue him.
Said the lawyer: 'If you're being sued, the record is permanent. Even if the suit is withdrawn, the record will still stand.
'So if this man (Mr Foo) tries to apply for a credit card or a bank loan in the future, the banks may reject his applications because of the suit.'
Mr Foo's record may be struck out from the court file if he gets a law firm to apply to the court to do so.
But he would incur legal fees in the process.
