This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version. The insured was described as:. ComLaw lodged the Memorandum of Appearance on the same day; and. The parties disagree as to what transpired between their respective claims managers in the conversation. Winterthur, on the other hand, denied that there was any agreement between Mrs Tay and Chua as to Winterthur contributing towards the claim.
She added that there was no reason for her to do so pending further investigation. Winterthur had not instructed solicitors at that time. What is immediately obvious is that there is not a word in the letter regarding the alleged agreement to contribute. It is also clear that it had not been resolved whose policy was engaged. In the same fax, she had forwarded a copy of the policy issued by Winterthur and requested a copy of the QBE policy and a copy of an investigation report on the accident.
She received no response. She therefore wrote on 16 October to ComLaw asking for the documents requested. Still, there was no response from ComLaw. There was again no response. We refer to our fax dated 1. To-date, we received no response from you. We await your response within 7 days from the date of this letter failing which we shall take it that the foregoing is accepted by your client and we shall treat the matter as closed.
Even then, she received no response. She also considered the matter as closed. Finally, it threatened legal action unless it heard favourably from Winterthur within two weeks. Winterthur had not been consulted in regard to this. In fact, ComLaw had concluded the litigation without reference to Winterthur at all, whether in the filing of the Defence or the consent to interlocutory judgment.
The note included this entry:. Strangely, although Chua had affirmed an affidavit on 10 September , he had not mentioned the existence of the memo. Why was the memo not even alluded to earlier? It came from out of the blue, as it were, at the hearing and was not verified by an affidavit. No explanation was offered why it had not been produced earlier.
