- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Huge Waste of Taxpayers’ Money for HDB to engage Allen and Gledhill’s Legal Services[/h]
August 14th, 2012 |
Author: Contributions
I refer to the news, Flat-Owner Sues HDB for Acquiring Flat [ LINK ]. In your report, you mentioned “The HDB on Wednesday declined to comment. Its lawyers from Allen & Gledhill are expected to file defence papers in due course. A High Court hearing is due this month.”
As a taxpayer, I was shocked to read that HDB decided to engage Allen and Gledhill as its defence counsel.
While HDB can have the unfettered decision to engage any private legal practioners in a lawsuit, it is quite disconcerting to note that they decided to choose a big house firm Allen and Gledhill which can rack up exhorbitant legal fees. Allen and Gledhill is one the biggest and reputable law firms and can easily charge more than $10,000 for their work, depending on the complexity of the case.
As this has progressed to the High Court, one can imagine the high legal fees already paid up-front.
Within HDB itself, they also have their own full-time inhouse legal practitioners who have valid practicing licenses to take on litigation issues.
In addition, since HDB is a public organisation, they can also engage the services of the State Counsel from Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to help them in their defence work. Shouldn’t HDB consult the State Counsel from AGC before they engage Allen and Gledhill as their legal practitioners?
HDB’s decision to engage Allen and Gledhill makes a mockery of PS21’s Cut Waste Committee which was set up in 2001.
.
Edmund Lim
.
Editor’s note: TRE has sent an email to HDB to ask for comments on the matter. The email has also been cc to Minister Khaw. Fyi.
I refer to the news, Flat-Owner Sues HDB for Acquiring Flat [ LINK ]. In your report, you mentioned “The HDB on Wednesday declined to comment. Its lawyers from Allen & Gledhill are expected to file defence papers in due course. A High Court hearing is due this month.”
As a taxpayer, I was shocked to read that HDB decided to engage Allen and Gledhill as its defence counsel.
While HDB can have the unfettered decision to engage any private legal practioners in a lawsuit, it is quite disconcerting to note that they decided to choose a big house firm Allen and Gledhill which can rack up exhorbitant legal fees. Allen and Gledhill is one the biggest and reputable law firms and can easily charge more than $10,000 for their work, depending on the complexity of the case.
As this has progressed to the High Court, one can imagine the high legal fees already paid up-front.
Within HDB itself, they also have their own full-time inhouse legal practitioners who have valid practicing licenses to take on litigation issues.
In addition, since HDB is a public organisation, they can also engage the services of the State Counsel from Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) to help them in their defence work. Shouldn’t HDB consult the State Counsel from AGC before they engage Allen and Gledhill as their legal practitioners?
HDB’s decision to engage Allen and Gledhill makes a mockery of PS21’s Cut Waste Committee which was set up in 2001.
.
Edmund Lim
.
Editor’s note: TRE has sent an email to HDB to ask for comments on the matter. The email has also been cc to Minister Khaw. Fyi.
