JUDGMENT

Wong Hok Chong JC:

Introduction

[1] These are 2 appeals emanating from the same Sessions Court suit:

(1) Appeal No 42 is the Defendant's appeal against the learned Sessions Court Judge's ("SCJ") decision to dismiss the Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs Amended Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("RC") (Encl 26 in the Sessions Court); and

(2) Appeal No 44 is the Defendant's appeal against the SCJ's decision to allow the Plaintiff's application to strike out the Defendant's Amended Defence and to enter judgment against the Defendant pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) and/or (d) RC (Encl 22 in the Sessions Court).

[2] They concerned the same issues and were heard together. After hearing both parties' submissions, I dismissed both appeals and upheld the SCJ's decisions. These are the grounds of my decision.

Background

[3] The Defendant engaged the Plaintiff as solicitors to act for them to sue MBSB in a civil suit ("MBSB Suit"). According to the Defendant, there was an oral agreement between the parties that the legal fees to be paid would be 30% of the damages that the Court awarded to the Defendant in the MBSB Suit ("Oral Agre