[2025] SGDC 324

Costs

This is a taxation review application. The applicant applied for a review of the taxation by the learned DR (“DR”) of section 1 costs and section 2 costs of the solicitor and client District Court Bill of Costs No 12 of 2025 (“BCS 12”) filed in respect of eight invoices.

Costs

The taxation review application was argued before me. For the reasons set out below, I am dismissing the application; and also further reducing section 1 costs.

Costs

As regards the approach to adopt in assessing (or taxing) costs, in the oft-quoted passage in Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] SGCA 2910 (“Lin Jian Wei”) at [78], the Court of Appeal held as follows:

Costs

The thrust of Lin Jian Wei is the application of the proportionality principle to assessment of costs. The Court of Appeal held that the conduct of litigation should be in a manner which bears some correlation to the amount or nature of the claim and costs are to be awarded accordingly. The taxing officer is to assess the relative complexity of the matter, and the work that was reasonably required in the prevailing circumstances.

Costs

As seen above, the Court of Appeal held that all of the Appendix 1 considerations are relevant in assessing costs. In the general scheme of things, no single consideration ordinarily ought to take precedence.

Costs

As regards the approach in the assessment of solicitor and client costs, it is trite that costs are presumed to be reasonable if a client approved the incurring of the costs. However, it should be noted that this is not immutable. As pointed out by the respondent, the presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted by an express finding that such costs were excessive and unreasonable: Selvam LLC v AMLA Pte Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGHC 22014 at [38]; Gabriel Law Corp v H&C S Holdings Pte Ltd [2021] 3 SLR 129813 (“Gabriel Law Corp”) at [19], [20] and [30].

Costs

It is not disputed that the invoices which constituted the section 1 costs were for the period post discovery until the exchange of the affidavits of evidence-in-chief (“AEICs”) ie, before the start of trial. In short, they were for the AEIC stage of the proceedings. The primary work done by the applicant during the Invoiced Period was:

Costs

I note first an important development since the DR’s decision on 25 August 2025 which has a significant impact on the question of the quantum of solicitor and client costs claimed by the applicant under this application. The trial judge had on 30 October 2025 rendered a costs award in DC 2892 (“Costs Award”) after the delivery of his judgment in De Beaute (SSC) Pte Ltd v Tan Mong Ngoh [2025] SGDC 268. The trial judge has fixed the party-and-party costs of the pre-trial work in DC 2892 (including pleadings, discovery, PTCs and the exchange of AEICs) at $28,000.

Costs

The respondent points out that in the light of the party-and party costs fixed by the trial judge for pre-trial work, and assuming that the work done for the AEIC stage is about half of the work done for the pre-trial stage, the costs for the AEIC stage would amount to approximately $14,000 in party-and-party costs under the Costs Award.

Costs

The Costs Award handed down by the trial judge is a significant development for two reasons. First, the trial judge would have had the best sense of the complexity of the underlying suit in arriving at the Costs Award. As the trial judge, he was in a unique position to be able to determine the amount of work that was necessary for parties and their counsel to reasonably undertake in litigating the underlying suit. In deciding the Costs Award, the trial judge was also best placed to apply the considerations under Appendix 1 discussed above, to determine what would be the justifiable costs for work that needed to be done. The second significance of the Costs Award is that when the DR taxed BCS 12 on 25 August 2025, he did not have the benefit of the trial judge’s Costs Award to guide him in determining the solicitor and client costs. On the other hand, I have now the Costs Award from which I have to take reference. I will return to the Costs Award in my discussion of the appropriate quantum of the solicitor and client costs below.

Costs

Second, in my view, Appendix H of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021 which sets out the guidelines for party-and-party costs awards in district court cases provides a useful aid in determining the quantum of costs in the present case. Whilst Appendix H applies only to cases filed under ROC 2021, there is no reason why the principles behind Appendix H do not apply equally to cases filed under ROC 2014 (the underlying suit was filed under ROC 2014). I thus turn now to Appendix H.

Costs

Appendix H provides that the party-and-party costs for the AEIC stage of tort and commercial cases to be between $4,000 to $12,000. As pointed out by the respondent, even if one generously multiplies the highest sum of $12,000 by two or two and half times to account for the uplift given to solicitor and client costs, it will yield a sum of $24,000 to $30,000. The respondent therefore contends that the quantum of $30,000 for section 1 is not unreasonable. At this juncture, it is appropriate to recap Gill J’s findings that the underlying suit was not as complex as the applicant has made it out to be. As noted by his Honour, it was a district court matter involving alleged breaches of employment by an ex-employee.

Costs

Next, I return to the trial judge’s Costs Award. To recap, the trial judge has fixed the party-and-party costs of the pre-trial work in DC 2892 (including pleadings, discovery, PTCs and the exchange of AEICs) at $28,000. As discussed, in the light of the party-and party costs of the pre-trial work fixed by the trial judge, and assuming that the work done for the AEIC stage is about half of the work done for the pre-trial stage, it would amount to approximately $14,000 in party-and-party costs for the AEIC stage under the Costs Award. The respondent contends that even if one generously multiplies that sum by two to account for the uplift for solicitor and client costs, the amount will be approximately $28,000 for the solicitor and client costs for the AEIC stage of the proceedings. I note in this regard that the quantum for solicitor and client costs derived by taking reference from the Costs Award comports with the respondent’s contention that $30,000 is the appropriate amount for section 1. For the reasons I discussed above, the Costs Award provides useful guidance in determining the solicitor and client costs. I do not see any justifiable basis in the present case why the solicitor and client costs should not take reference from the party-and-party costs as determined by the trial judge.

Costs

As seen, under the fee estimate, the solicitor and client costs for the AEIC stage is $30,000. The sum of $30,000 is also the figure arrived at in the analysis above using Appendix H and the Costs Award as reference. The sum of $30,000 thus stands at the confluence of three different approaches in the analysis of the appropriate solicitor and client costs for the AEIC stage.

Costs

In view of the foregoing, taken in the round, I find the respondent’s contention that $30,000 should be the costs for the AEIC stage to be eminently fair and reasonable.

Costs

As for the costs of the three PTCs and the Applications, I agree with the respondent that the applicant should not separately be allowed the costs of the three PTCs. This is because the PTCs would be for the purposes of the conduct of the AEIC stage of the proceedings and are therefore part of the AEIC stage for costs purposes. As pointed out by the respondent, there is in fact no separate provision for costs for PTCs in Appendix H. I note that the trial judge also did not separately award party-and-party costs for the PTC attendances. It was included under the component of pre-trial work. In the circumstances, I agree with the respondent that the applicant should only be entitled to costs for the Applications, which I assess to be reasonably in the sum of $4,000. In arriving at the sum of $4,000, I take into consideration that the party-and-party costs ordered for the Applications was in the amount of $3,000.

Costs

In summary, following from the above, I tax down section 1 costs to the sum of $34,000.

Costs

As for section 2, the DR has disallowed the applicant’s costs for work done for the assessment of costs, but allowed the allocator fees and filing fees for the Registrar’s Certificate. The respondent urges me to disallow the allocator and filing fees as well. I note that the costs claimed under BCS 12 by the applicant have been taxed down substantially. It is in fact now a mere fraction of what the applicant has claimed. I note also the respondent’s contention in respect of the conduct of the respective parties and I appreciate the force of the respondent’s argument in that regard. I will however not disallow the fees that need to be paid to extract the Registrar’s Certificate (ie, allocator fees and filing fees for the Registrar’s Certificate). The reason for my decision is that the applicant did not have the benefit of the trial judge’s Costs Award at the time of filing BCS 12. As for the substantial taxing down of BCS 12, that has been spoken to by the DR’s disallowing of section 2 costs, which I find eminently appropriate and have no reason to disagree with.

Costs

The analysis of the appropriate solicitor and client costs for the AEIC stage using as reference Appendix H and the Costs Award given by the trial judge both yield the sum of $30,000. The sum of $30,000 is also the figure arrived at under the applicant’s own fee estimate given to the respondent in the course of its engagement as solicitors in DC 2892. For the reasons given above, no separate costs should be awarded for the three PTCs, and the sum of $4,000 is not an unreasonable amount for the Applications.

Costs

In the premises, I reduce section 1 costs further to $34,000. The DR’s decision in respect of section 2 costs is to stand.

Costs

As for the costs of this application, I find no reason for costs not to follow the event. As regards quantum, in my view, a review of taxation is akin to a registrar’s appeal. In this regard, I take guidance from Appendix H, although it is applicable only to cases under ROC 2021. The relevant costs range provided for registrar’s appeals in Pt V is $1,000 to $5,000. After considering the respective submissions, the amount of work done, the time spent by parties, and the issues involved, I fix costs at $4,500 (inclusive of disbursements) to the respondent.