Wee Swee Teow LLP - Law Firm Singapore
           
 
     
  Law Firm Singapore  
 

 

  Awards & Accolades  
 

The firm is one of the rare heritage law firms that survived to this day. The firm however prides itself even more for maintaining its passion and strives for excellence in providing legal advice and service to its clients. Its achievements have been noted and recognized in many ways.

Our Mr Giam Chin Toon S.C. has been recognised as an Expert in Commercial Arbitration in Singapore (in Experts in Commercial Arbitration (2009)) by http://www.expertguides.com.

Based on the recommendations of in-house counsel at the world’s most prominent companies and financial institutions, our firm was also ranked as one of the firms to go to in Singapore for Construction & Real Estate by Asialaw Profiles – The guide to the Asia-Pacific’s leading law firms (Asialaw Profiles 2010).

The litigation cases that the firm handles frequently appear in newspapers or on the internet. In almost all of the cases featured in the newspapers, the firm’s clients succeeded in their cases.


Some of the recent or more notable court cases which were featured in the newspapers are as follows.

  • In Public Prosecutor v Khian Heng Construction (Private) Ltd [2012] SGDC 9, a main contractor was prosecuted for damage to a high kilovolt cable. The cable was damaged during piling works which the main contractor had subcontracted to its sub-contractor. Although the damage was not caused directly by the main-contractor, the main contractor had given the sub-contractor the go-ahead for the piling works which damaged the cable. In the first instance, the main contractor was held liable and fined $100,000.00. WST successfully argued on appeal that the main contractor should not be liable as the damage was caused directly by the sub-contractor. The main contractor was acquitted of the charge brought against it and the $100,000.00 fine was quashed and ordered to be refunded. The verdict of the High Court was of great interest to the various players in the construction industry as it made clear that the subcontractors - and not main contractors - will have to bear the greater blame if it is their work that directly damages an underground cable. See:-
    • “Sub-contractor to blame for cable damage” in the July 13, 2012 issue of The Straits Times, at Home page B13
  • WST acted for the husband whose teacher wife is accused of having an affair with a former student from the time he was 16. In this divorce matter, a rare application for an anton pillar was made by WST and granted by the Court for WST to go to the teacher wife's place of work to seize the email correspondence between her and her former student which was in danger of being deleted/destroyed. See:-
    • “I won't fight divorce, says wife accused of affair with student” in the November 22, 2011 issue of The Straits Times at Home page B3
    • “疑妻与学生搞暧昧商人要离婚” The June 15 2011 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 10
    • “‘Teacher-student affair’ hurt marriage” in the June 15, 2011 issue of My Paper
    • “Businessman files for divorce from school teacher wife over her “improper association” with former student. She denies it, but he claims It started when boy was 16”in the June 15, 2011 issue of The NewPaper
    • “Wife had affair with ex-student, claims man”in the June 15, 2011 issue of The Straits Times at Home, page B5
    • “After her 20-year affair, now hubby wants divorce”in the June 15, 2011 issue of Today
  • WST successfully acted for a widow in her fight against her in-laws in 2 acrimonious property disputes. In this case, whilst the widow's late husband was in coma in the United States, her late husband's elder brother started proceedings in Singapore claiming that the widow's late husband's property at Margate Road was held in trust for him. As the widow was kept unaware of her brother-in-law's suit in Singapore, the brother-in-law obtained default judgment in his favour and quickly transferred the property to himself and sold it for $4.8 million. Subsequently whilst the widow was still in the United States, the widow's mother-in-law also started proceedings in Singapore claiming that the widow's property at Seraya Lane was held in trust for her and obtained a default judgment in her favour as well. Fortunately, the widow discovered the state of affairs before the widow's property at Seraya Lane was transferred to her mother-in-law. WST thereafter successfully acted for the widow in setting against the default judgments and in her claim for the sale proceeds of the Margate Property which was sold. (See Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo [2010] 1 SLR 286 and Tan Chan Tee v Chen Tsui Yu and Another Suit [2009] SGHC 36) In 2011, WST once again acted for the widow in her fight to recover over $2 million of the sale proceeds which were dissipated by the brother-in-law to his wife, mother and children and successfully helped the widow to obtain a consent judgment against them. See:-
    • “Widow wins fight to recover over $2m”; the September 13, 2011 issue of The Straits Times at Home, page B6
    • “向家婆等追讨售屋所得妇女赢官司拿回百多万元” the September 13, 2011 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 6 of Singapore News
    • “高龄家婆否认收长自100万” the September 8, 2011 issue of Shin Min Daily News
    • “大伯获判洋房后买下货仓和店屋” the September 7, 2011 issue of Shin Min Daily News
    • “遗孀向夫家4人追讨200万卖屋钱” the September 6, 2011 issue of Shin Min Daily News
    • “法庭判亡夫洋房给妇女 大伯却以480万元卖掉” the September 6, 2011 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 4
    • “Widow sues relatives to recover over $2m” in the September 6, 2011 issue of The Straits Times at Home, page B5
    • “$4.8m dispute: Widow wants to move on” in the October 18, 2009 issue of The Sunday Times
    • “Dispute over dead man's house resolved” in the October 16, 2009 issue of The Straits Times
    • “亡夫和自己房地产遭脱售遗孀胜诉从婆家争回权益” the February 19, 2009 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 11
    • “Tussle over Two Properties, Mum, brother lose suits” in the February 19, 2009 issue of The Straits Times at Home page B4
    • “Family fights over 2 houses worth millions” in the May 6, 2008 issue of The Straits Times
    • “In-Laws take over their houses” in the October 11, 2007 issue of The New Paper
  • WST defended a married couple and successfully resisted an appeal by the prosecutors for a prison sentence to be imposed on the couple for “front running” insider dealing. The couple was convicted and fined $120,000 after the trader wife was caught tipping the husband off about deals in advance. This was the first time in Singapore that anyone was caught engaging in a form of insider dealing called “front running” and the Attorney-General's Chambers had appealed for a stiffer sentence. This appeal was dismissed. See:-
    • “‘Front Running’ Insider Dealing Couple escape jail in AG Chambers' appeal” in the August 26, 2011 at Home, page C9
  • In former shot-putter Luan Wei's suit against the Singapore Athletic Association, WST successfully acted for and defended the Association against claims by the china-born athlete, Luan Wei, who alleged that the Association had made promises which it did not fulfil. See:-
    • “Courts dismiss Luan's case against SAA” in The Electric New Paper
    • “Ex-shot putter fails in bid to sue sports body” in the 15, October 2010 issue of The Straits Times at Home, page C10
    • “Shot putter Luan loses case against SAA” in October 15, 2010 issue of Today at page 46
    • “Ex-shot putter loses suit” in 14, October 2010 issue of The Straits Times
    • “Luan's poor attitude held him back, says coach Ma” in the April 23, 2010 issue of Today at page 40
    • “Former track and field chief blasts Luan's attitude” in the April 22, 2010 issue of Today
    • “Loh refutes irresponsible allegation” in the April 21, 2010 issue of Today
    • “SAA president takes stand in civil trial” in April 20, 2010 issue of Today
    • “Thrower ‘not happy with replacement coach’” in the April 14, 2010 issue of Today
    • “Shot putter: I was promised citizenship” in the April 13, 2010 issue of Today
    • “Sacked athlete had to fork out nearly $60,000 in expenses” in the December 4, 2009 issue of Today
    • “China-born athlete sues for breach of contract ‘He was here to study & train’ Mother says that full-time training was not part of agreement with SAA” in the December 3, 2009 issue of The New Paper
    • “遭辞退中国籍铅球手控田总违反承诺索偿” the December 2, 2009 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 3
    • “Sacked China Athlete sues SAA” in the December 2, 2009 issue of the Straits Times
    • “Athletics body in court” in the December 2, 2009 issue of Today
  • Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners) [2010] 4 SLR 373 and Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners) [2009] SGHC 229, which involved a dispute between 2 sisters over 20 properties left by their late mother. WST successfully acted for the younger sister and helped her prove that the second will was void as it was executed under suspicious circumstances when their mother was suffering from dementia. See:-
    • “CJ: Be diligent when making wills for elderly” in the August 11, 2010 issue of The Straits Times
    • “‘favourite child’ wins dispute over will” in the October 26, 2009 issue of The Straits Times
    • “1989: Sole heir 1996: Cut out of millions Two Sisters' legal battle over mum's contrasting wills splits siblings” in the July 1, 2008 issue of The Straits Times
    • “姐妹为千万元房产打官司” the July 1 2008 issue of Lianhe ZaoBao at page 3
    • “Sisters fight each other over more than 20 properties left by late mum” in the September 8, 2007 issue of The Straits Times
  • In Cousins Scott William v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2010] SGHC 73, the Royal Bank of Scotland retrenched Mr Scott Cousins but fired him 11 days later and withdrew his retrenchment package after it found out that he sent email messages containing confidential bank data to his personal email account. WST acted for Mr Scott Cousins and successfully claimed for $455,085.39 from the bank (the sum payable under the redundancy agreement). Interesting Issues such as whether (a) an employee can be summarily dismissed after having been made redundant; (b) a breach of a confidentiality obligation can deprive the employee of all his benefits under a separate/subsequent redundancy agreement even if the breach did not cause any loss to the employer; and (c) an employer can treat a repudiatory breach of the employment contract as a repudiatory breach of the redundancy agreement were addressed in the case. See:-
    • “Judge to bank: You can't sack ex-employee” in the March 13, 2010 issue of The Straits Times
  • In Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) [2009] 2 SLR(R) 166, WST successfully acted for and helped a foreign creditor register a foreign judgment amounting to £ 42 million in Singapore, although the creditor had missed the deadline for registering the judgment by over 5 years. WST argued that the delay was due to factors beyond the creditor's control; that the creditor had been diligent in trying to enforce the judgment in other countries around the world; and that the debtor had tried to prevent the detection of its assets in Singapore. The Court of Appeal accepted these arguments. See:-
    • “Court of Appeal allows firm's move to recover $21.6 m” in the January 6, 2009 issue of The Straits Times
  • In Ang Meng Lee v Ng Sam Khui [2008] SGHC 223, Ang Meng Lee claimed that a prime property situated at 20B Nassim Road which was in the joint-names of herself and her sister-in-law, Ng Sam Khui, was wholly hers. The property's value was around $11.5 million. WST acted for Ng and succeeded in arguing for Ang's claim to be dismissed. Ng and her husband also succeeded in their counter-claim against Ang for breach of trust and fiduciary duties in the rentals collected. WST also appeared in the Court of Appeal in the appeal by Ang, where Ng's ownership of the property was not challenged and her rights under the counter-claim were upheld. This case was reported in Trust World, an international trust law and practice website. See:-
    • “老谋深算’女商人败诉争洋房‘倒贴’500万元” the December 4,2008 issue of the Lianhe ZaoBao
  • WST successfully acted for Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd in Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2007] 1 SLR (R) 292 - In Annual Review of Singapore Cases (7, 2006) - Equity and Trusts, the Author Dr. Tang Hang Wu (Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore) commented that “The carefully reasoned judgment of Sundaresh Menon JC in Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2007] 1 SLR 292 appears set to become the locus classicus on proprietory estoppel in Singapore.
  • Banque National de Paris v Hew Keong Chan Gary [2001]1SLR300 - In Banque National de Paris v Hew Keong Chan Gary [2001]1SLR300, a French bank claimed that Tan Shee Chin, a private banking customer of the bank and his sister, dishonestly assisted his sister's husband, Gary Hew, a BNP employee to cause the bank losses of $4.5 million in share and foreign-exchange transactions. WST acted for Tan Shee Chin and successfully defended him against the bank's claim in the High Court. See:-
    • “Siblings ‘not liable’ for $4.5m loss by bank” in the November 23, 2000 issue of the Straits Times
  • In Tai Kam San v Lim Cher Kia [2001]1SLR607, 2 shareholders sold their shares to another shareholder in a company. The company was subsequently listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange and the shareholder who bought their shares became the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company. The former shareholders started an action against him for the shares they sold, claiming misrepresentation and breach of director's duties. WST successfully defended him in the High Court. WST also acted in the appeal, where the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by the 2 former shareholders. See:-
    • “Ex-directors sold shares voluntarily” in the October 28, 2000 issue of the Straits Times
    • “Former directors sue to get back shares sold” in the October 17, 2000 issue of the Straits Times
    • “BNP sues siblings for $4.5m loss” in the June 27, 2000 issue of the Straits Times
  • Moulmein Development Pte Ltd v. Teo Teck Guan & Another [1998] 1 SLR(R) 195, where WST helped an occupier of a piece of land at Crane Road claim ownership of the land by virtue of adverse possession. WST argued that the occupier and his family occupied the land for more than 12 years, during which they had demonstrated their intention of taking possession of the land to the exclusion of all others. The Court of Appeal accepted WST's arguments. See:-
    • “I feel more numb than happy” and “Family gets to keep land it squatted on, Appeals court rules” in the November 21, 1997 issue of The Straits Times
    • “锌板老屋另有乾坤” in the November 21, 1997 issue of Lianhe Zaobao
  • WST was involved in Singapore's last appeal to the Privy Council (Lee Hiok Woon and others v Lee Hiok Ping and others [1996] 1 SLR(R) 643; [1996] SGPC 1) which dealt with breaches of trust taking place over a period of 30 years, as well as the High Court and Court of Appeal stages of the same matter. WST represented the successful parties from the High Court all the way to the Privy Council. WST also dealt with the subsequent applications for accounts and inquiries, tracing trust assets and examining transactions over the said 30-year period. See:-
    • “银行家李伟卿兄弟遗产案英国枢密院后天起审三天是我国交枢密院审理的最后一起案件” in the September 3, 1996 issue of the Lianhe ZaoBao
    • “李伟南子孙准向枢密院上诉” in the November 25, 1993 issue of the Lianhe Wanbao
    • “上诉庭维持原判,李伟卿子孙胜诉” in the July 31, 1993 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “李伟南后人败诉上诉也失败” in the July 30, 1993 issue of the Lianhe Wanbao
    • “败方想提新证据 李伟南后人上诉遭驳回” in the November 24, 1992 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “李伟卿后人打赢遗产官司” in the January 25, 1992 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “Local tycoon's family loses part of estate to relatives in Thailand” in the January 15, 1992 issue of the Straits Times
    • “李伟卿儿孙胜诉” in the January 24, 1992 issue of the Shin Min Daily News
    • “因涉及诸多文件与法律判词明年一月始可写完” in the November 22, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “High Court hearing into 3-generation dispute ends” in the November 22, 1991 issue of the Straits Times
    • “起诉人接受100万元 不意味放弃索遗产权益” in the November 21 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “四批股票不是李伟南个人资产” in the November 20, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “转入李毓记公司资产是李伟南的个人股票” in the November 19, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “四十年前即有争讼征兆” in the November 16, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “答辩人指起诉人所作指控无根据” in the November 15, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “遗产财产状况遭隐瞒” in the November 14, 1991 issue of the Lianhe Zaobao
    • “起诉人女皇律师追述“彩记”“伟记”设立经过” in the November 13, 1991 issue of Lianhe Zaobao
    • “Descendants of tycoon brothers in court battle for fortune” in the November 13, 1991 issue of the Straits Times
    • “Coffin maker's son made his fortune here” in the November 13, 1991 issue of the Straits Times
    • “李伟南李伟卿后人遗产争执闹上法庭” in the November 12, 1991 issue of Lianhe Zaobao
    • “潮州巨富后人争遗产案 爆出更多家庭内幕” in the November 12, 1991 issue of Lianhe Wanbao
    • “潮州巨富后人争遗产打官司” in the November 11, 1991 issue of Lianhe Wanbao
    • “纠缠25年 4兄弟又对薄公堂” in the November 11, 1991 issue of Shin Min Daily News

 




 

 

 

 

 
 
Wee Swee Teow LLP.
491B River Valley Road, #10-03/04 Valley Point, Singapore, 248373
Tel: (65) 6532 2966
| Fax: (65) 6534 3313 | Email: wsteow@singnet.com.sg

Copyright © 2017 Wee Swee Teow LLP. All rights reserved.
Designed by StudioWorkz Productions.
Profile      Areas of Practice      Partners      Careers      Contact