T Kulasekaram J:

The plaintiff in this action was involved in a traffic accident on 18 November 1970 when he was run into by motor scooter registered No. SAK 5224, ridden by one Lim Ser Hock. As a result of this accident he sustained personal injuries.

The defendants during all the material time are the partners of the firm of Hilborne & Co. advocates and solicitors practising as such in Singapore.

In late November 1970 the plaintiff engaged the defendants' firm to act for him in making a claim and if necessary in taking proceedings for damages against the said Lim Ser Hock arising out of the traffic accident.

It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants had negligently and in breach of the implied term of their engagement by the plaintiff failed to take due steps to have the writ of summons served on the said Lim Ser Hock before 7 August 1974 on which date the action against the said Lim Ser Hock for damages arising out of the said traffic accident became statute-barred. The plaintiff claims damages against the defendants.

The defendants in their defence denied liability.

The main witnesses on the issue of liability were the plaintiff New Ching Kee and Lee Hien Weng who was the managing clerk of the defendants' firm and clerk in charge of the plaintiff's case.

The evidence placed before me revealed that the plaintiff after his traffic accident on 18 November 1970 went to the offices of the defendants' firm, Messrs Hilborne & Co. of 22 Nunes Building, a firm of advocates and solicitors, and engaged them to act for him in making a claim and if necessary for taking proceedings for damages against the said motor scooterist Lim Ser Hock in respect of the aforesaid motor accident. It was Mr. Lee in the defendants' firm whom the plaintiff saw and who after taking down particulars from him told the plaintiff he would write to him after investigation. On 10 February 1971 plaintiff called at the office of Messrs Hilborne & Co. and paid $50 for disbursements and thereafter from time to time either on receipt of letters from them or on his own initiative went to their office and saw Mr. Lee as to how his matter was progressing.

During the first year or two, the defendants carried on some desultory correspondence with Taisho Marine & Fire Insurance Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Taisho) the insurers of this motor scooter SAK 5224 which was involved in this accident hoping to negotiate a settlement of the claim and culminating in their letter of 29 November 1970 (AB10), wherein they suggested $13,000 as an appropriate quantum of damages, $10,000 being for loss of earnings and expenses for extra hand as help in plaintiff's farm and $3,000 as damages for his personal injury to the arm.

On 7 August 1973 the defendants issued the writ of summons in Suit No. 1652/ 73 in this matter against the said Lim Ser Hock before the three year period under the Limitation Act ran out which would be on 18 November 1973. The next day, that is on 8 August 1973 the defendants sent a notice to Taisho of the commencement of proceedings in Suit No. 1652/73 (AB16).

On 17 August 1973 Messrs Battenberg & Talma as solicitors for Taisho, came into the picture and wrote to the defendants (AB17), asking them to kindly withhold further proceedings in Suit No. 1652/73 until they had assembled all the facts regarding the accident. They also asked the defendants how they had arrived at their suggested figure of $10,000 for loss of earnings of the plaintiff and accepting $3,000 as damages for the personal injury to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile on 15 August 1973 the defendants had made an appointment with the Court process server for 22 August 1973 to have the writ of summons served on the said Lim Ser Hock and had also accordingly informed the plaintiff to be present at their office on 22 August 1973 to effect the service. The letter, AB17, from Messrs Battenberg & Talma was received at the defendants' office on 21~August 1973 and on 22 August 1973