This is an application under section 113 of the Legal Profession Act by one Shamsudin bin Embun ("the applicant") to set aside an agreement on costs of $15,000 ("the agreement") dated September 20, 1985 and made between the applicant and his solicitor, P.T. Seah ("the solicitor" which expression, for convenience, includes P.T. Seah & Co.).

The application is based on two grounds: (1) the agreement is unfair or unreasonable under section 113 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 217) and (2) the applicant did not know that the agreement was an agreement for costs, i.e. the plea of non est factum.

This application would normally have been dealt with in a summary manner. However, in view of the plea of non est factum, I decided to give both parties an opportunity to give oral testimony on this plea. They elected to do so. Accordingly, the evidence adduced in this case is found not only in my notes of evidence but also the affidavits filed by both parties.

The facts are as follows. On April 24, 1980, the applicant was injured whilst assisting in the loading of some pipes onto a lorry belonging to the first defendant at Jurong Port when some pipes pushed him off the lorry onto the floor. The loading was done by a forklift alleged to have been in the control of the second defendant or the third defendant. On May 2, 1980 the applicant signed a warrant to act authorizing the solicitor to act for him. On April 22, 1983, the solicitor issued a writ of summons indorsed with a general indorsement as follows:

"The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injuries and consequential loss suffered by him as a result of an accident on or about the 24th day of April 1980 at Jurong Port, Singapore and caused by the negligence of the first, second or third defendants, their servants, or agents or by the breach by the second or third defendants of their duty to the plaintiff as an invitee to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff as their invitee during the course of his employment as a lorry driver employed by Yew Choon Pte Ltd."

On November 1, 1983, the solicitor filed an affidavit of service in which he affirmed that the writ had been served by him on the first defendant by leaving it at his registered office. The affidavit appears to have been defective because on January 14, 1984, the solicitor filed another but fuller affidavit affirming substantially the same fact. On the same day, the solicitor entered interlocutory judgment against the first defendant.

On February 21, 1984, an appearance to the writ was entered by the second defendant and on February 22, 1984, an appearance was entered by the third defendant. On March 19, 1984, the solicitor filed a statement of claim in which it was alleged that (a) the accident was caused by the negligence of the first defendant (of which five particulars of negligence were given) or a breach of duty by the first defendant as employer of the plaintiff (b) the second defendant was liable as having the control of the forklift or as an occupier of the premises where the accident occurred (of which three particulars were given) (c) the third defendant was liable as having the control of the forklift or as an occupier of the premises where the accident occurred (of which three particulars were given) and (d) the accident was res ipsa loquitur.

On May 22, 1984, the solicitor filed the notice of appearance of assessment of damages wherein January 15, 1985 was appointed as the date for the mention of the assessment of damages. The matter indeed came on for mention on January 15, 1985 and the Registrar's minutes show that the solicitor was not ready to assess damages on that day. The assessment commenced on January 23, 1985 with the applicant giving evidence of his injuries and was finally completed on September 10, 1985. The certificate of assessment of damages was signed by the Assistant Registrar and dated September 10, 1985. On February 17, 1986, the solicitor entered final j