Parents settle with IMH, psychiatrist for S$330,000 over son's suicide; ex-lawyers press for 'unpaid' fees
File photo of the Supreme Court.
BY
LYDIA LAM
Published August 25, 2023Updated August 25, 2023
WhatsAppTelegramFacebookTwitterEmailLinkedIn
SINGAPORE — The parents who sued a private psychiatrist and the Institute of Mental Health for S$3.3 million over alleged negligence linked to their son's suicide have settled for a sum of S$330,000.
However, the father's former lawyer filed court summonses asking for the money to be paid into court, as he felt the plaintiffs might "run off" with the settlement money while his fees of more than S$372,000 remain unpaid.
ADVERTISEMENT
A second lawyer, who acted for the deceased man's mother in the suit, is claiming fees of about S$141,000.
In a judgment released on Friday (Aug 25), Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the summonses by the first lawyer. He said that all those involved may move on "sadder but wiser" if the lawyers can settle with their ex-clients on costs and "leave them with a sum sufficient as a balm for their grief".
Mr Steven Joseph Arokiasamy, a 68-year-old retiree who previously worked with the Ministry of Defence, and Madam Tan Kin Tee, a 67-year-old part-time teacher, had sued Dr Nelson Lee Boon Chuan and IMH for S$3.3 million.
READ ALSO
Court settles acrimonious custody battle over 11-year-old son with neurodevelopment disorders
They blamed the defendants for the suicide of their son, Mr Salvin Foster Steven, who died aged 31 in 2017.
Mr Arokiasamy was initially represented by Mr Vijay Rai, while Mdm Tan was represented by Mr Anil Balchandani.
ADVERTISEMENT
However, the pair terminated the services of both lawyers in July, before the trial was set to begin in September.
About a week after this, the parents settled with the defendants and agreed to discontinue the suit.
On his judgment, Justice Choo sai this would ordinarily mean "an uneventful end", but Mr Rai filed a summons for his law firm to record the settlement, with the sum of S$330,000 to be paid into court.
Mr Rai later filed another summons for his law firm to be joined as a plaintiff or claimant.
READ ALSO
Divorced foreign woman asks court to allow shared custody of daughter so she can study and live in Singapore
He wanted to be made a plaintiff so that he can pursue his own demands over the settlement. He said that his fees rendered so far came to about S$372,000, with a separate sum of about S$13,000 in disbursements likely to be incurred.
ADVERTISEMENT
These amounts do not include a sum of about S$56,000 already paid to him, nor another S$40,000 in costs to be paid to the defendants for a discontinued action against a second psychiatrist.
Mr Balchandani, the former lawyer of the deceased's mother, said he would be seeking costs of about S$141,000. This does not include a sum of about S$10,600 that was already paid. Mr Balchandi expressed support for the two summonses brought by Mr Rai.
According to Justice Choo, Mr Rai filed the summonses because "he is anxious to have the S$330,000 paid into court because he thinks that the plaintiffs, especially the father, may 'run off' with the settlement money".
Justice Choo dismissed the two summonses, with Mr Rai's law firm to pay costs to the plaintiffs and defendants.
JUDGE EXPLAINS
In explaining his decision, Justice Choo said the pleadings did not indicate what cause of action the parents relied on.ADVERTISEMENT
He said it appeared that they claimed that their son was prescribed the wrong medication, was not properly attended to and was wrongly diagnosed as suffering from depression and not schizophrenia.
However, the judge said these claims should have been made on their son's behalf, by the father suing as the administrator of his son's estate.
"It does not explain why the father (personally) and the mother were suing as plaintiffs," said Justice Choo. "In their respective affidavits, they claim that their son's death drove them to depression and they could not therefore work."
The parents said this led to them being dismissed from their jobs.
Justice Choo said that the parents' case appeared to be "a difficult one", with an early settlement sparing them much anger and grief, not just "on account of the loss of their son, but now fuelled and furthered by festering animosity with their own lawyers and a looming sense of dread over the fees".
He said the settlement that was reached was "in itself right and fair", but said he was not satisfied that the fees incurred are justifiable.
He cited a previous document from November 2020 that estimated the fee for Mr Rai's law firm, inclusive of trial, to be about S$150,000.
This estimation was expected to be lower if the matter was settled before trial, which turned out to be the case.
"Despite having settled the suit before trial, Mr Rai is now claiming a sum of at least S$372,022.34, with an unknown amount yet to be claimed in further bills," said Justice Choo.
He said Mr Balchandani's fees of S$141,061.55, while a smaller sum, are "not insubstantial as well".
"In this connection, Mr Balchandani's support of both summonses is misplaced," said Justice Choo.
"The overall sum which the father and mother have already paid and the sums the lawyers are now claiming against them amount to around S$600,000, almost twice the settlement sum received by them before trial."
He said the clients are entitled to have the lawyers' fees taxed, to determine what the actual amount payable is.
"Until that is done, I need not comment further — save to say that it is for Mr Balchandani and Mr Rai to justify why the plaintiffs should incur the costs of hiring two sets of counsel to act for them in the matter of the death of their son," said Justice Choo.
He said there were overlaps in the work done by both lawyers, which should be considered in rendering the final bill.
"It is not too late for parties to salvage something from this situation," concluded Justice Choo.
"If Mr Balchandani and Mr Rai can come to a settlement on costs with their clients and leave them with a sum sufficient as a balm for their grief, then everyone concerned may move on, as they say, sadder but wiser." CNA
