'I PREFER to let my work speak for me,' says Senior Counsel K Shanmugam, in explaining why he prefers not to be interviewed on his achievements. 'I don't believe in talking about myself. My work is done in Open Court and people can assess for themselves.'
His body of work has made him one of Singapore's best-known and most-feared names in litigation. His cases - hundreds over the years - bear his hallmark; each victory is marked by his intense familiarity with every piece of evidence and a thorough and lightning-quick absorption of the facts, which has enabled him to trap witnesses in cross-examination and tear down cases meticulously built up by his opponents. More than once has Mr Shanmugam pulled a rabbit out of a hat, turning a seemingly impossible case on its side, by proving - through a superior interpretation of the evidence - that his opponents have not presented a sufficient case to answer, or by deftly luring witnesses into contradicting their own testimonies and admitting their guilt. He demonstrated this ability in the recent high-profile cases involving the National Kidney Foundation and Horizon Towers. But perhaps few know that such an impressive skill manifested itself in the very first High Court case he argued - that of Manilal & Sons (Pte) Ltd versus Bhupendra KJ Shan, in 1987. The plaintiffs, Manilal, were represented by M Karthigesu of Tan Rajah & Cheah and the defendants were represented by a very young Mr Shanmugam, who was then with Drew & Napier. 'I was only 28 years old, and up against a formidable opponent - Mr Karthigesu (who later became a Justice of Appeal). He would have been the equivalent of the very best amongst the SCs today, and it was quite challenging to square up against him,' Mr Shanmugam recounts. The odds were stacked against the young lawyer - 'The case was seen as a complete loser and was given to me as the youngest on the totem pole because no one else wanted to do it', he says. But, as in many of his other cases, the keen litigator managed to turn the table on his opponents. After the plaintiffs filed their list of documents for the trial, Mr Shanmugam pushed them for a further and better list of documents - realising there was more key evidence to be had. The plaintiffs failed to produce the documents, claiming either that the evidence had been written on 'scraps of paper' which had been thrown away or that the evidence was in the defendants' possession. Under intense cross examination, the plaintiffs' story was shredded to pieces. Mr Shanmugam argued that the plaintiffs' entire case should be thrown out. Justice Chao Hick Tin accepted Mr Shanmugam's arguments and, quoting excerpts of Mr Shanmugam's cross examination, threw out the plaintiffs' case completely, on the grounds that they had failed to give proper discovery of documents. The decision became an important and leading precedent on discovery in Singapore courts. Many will also remember IDA vs SingTel in 2002, for the personalities and sums involved. The Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) had sought the return of $388 million it claimed had been paid mistakenly to SingTel as the tax element in the $1.5 billion compensation that the telco received for giving up its monopoly early. IDA wanted the money back after the tax authority said the compensation was non-taxable. The case pitted Senior Counsel Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier, acting for IDA, against SingTel's counsel Mr Shanmugam and Jules Sher - one of Britain's most highly regarded Queen's Counsel. Justice Lai Kew Chai threw out IDA's claim in a strongly worded ruling, saying the telco regulator and SingTel had struck an inviolate contract and that it was 'wholly unjust and contrary to fair play' to order SingTel to return a part of the compensation. He ordered IDA to foot SingTel's legal costs and allowed SingTel to claim for two lawyers, instead of the customary one, on the grounds that the case required specialist expertise. Mr Shanmugam and Mr Sher's fees were tipped to weigh in at between $2 million and $3 million; and observers expressed their surprise at the IDA's decision not to appeal the ruling. He has also made waves in a case involving Lew Syn Pau in 2006, in which the former Member of Parliament was charged for breaching Section 76 of the Companies Act, which forbids a company from providing financial assistance to anyone for the purpose of acquiring its shares. The case was a high-profile one, given that it involved a former politician - but it was also notable in that it involved a question of law of unusual difficulty, and henceforth defined how Section 76 of the Companies Act would be interpreted. Mr Lew was said to have rendered financial assistance when Broadway's Mauritian subsidiary Compart Asia Pacific lent him $4.2 million and he, in turn, lent $4 million to a third party to buy the shares of listed Broadway Industrial Group. Mr Shanmugam successfully argued that the prosecution's case should be thrown out in its entirety even without the defence being called, on the basis that there was no breach of Section 76, as - for the purposes of company law - a parent company and its subsidiary are seen as separate legal entities, separated by a 'corporate veil'. Mr Shanmugam's remarkable ability to turn a case around in his cross-examination of witnesses was again showcased in Prebon vs BGC in 2006. Money broker Tullett Prebon sought $66.4 million from rival BGC International - represented by Mr Shanmugam - in compensation for lost business, claiming BGC conspired with its former regional head to 'decimate' its money-broking staff after almost half of them left to join BGC in February 2005. Prebon's witnesses contradicted their own testimonies, under cross-examination by Mr Shanmugam. Prebon's Asian head Len Harvey, in particular, became so entangled in his own evidence that he had to be stopped by his own counsel, who told the court: 'Your Honour, I think the witness should be given a chance to explain because this witness is not the brightest.' This intervention made it to the London Times.
Recent Comments