Achievers LLC v Legal Aid Bureau [2026] SGDC 162

Costs

DC/BCS 4/2026 (“BCS 4”) was an application by Achievers LLC (“the Applicant”) to assess a bill of costs it had delivered to the Legal Aid Bureau (“the Respondent”) for work done in Syariah Court Summons No 61241 for a legally aided person’s divorce proceedings in the Syariah Court (“the Bill of Costs”).

Costs

Of central concern was whether the BCS 4 ought to have been brought in the District Court or the Syariah Court. I found that the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine BCS 4 and proceeded to assess costs. These are the full grounds of my decision, released to clarify that such applications may be filed in the District Court.

Costs

BCS 4 was filed on 4 March 2026, where the Applicant sought to claim a total sum of $8,570 for work it had done in Syariah Court Summons No 61241. Pursuant to reg 15 of the Legal Aid and Advice Regulations (1995 Rev Ed) (“LAAR”), an assessment of the Bill of Costs is necessary for solicitors instructed by the Respondent to act for legally aided persons. The following documents were also filed: (a) a letter dated 27 January 2026 from the Respondent to the Applicant where the Respondent consented to the sum of $8,570 to be assessed; and (b) a Provisional Grant of Aid from the Respondent dated 27 January 2026 issued pursuant to reg 7 of the LAAR.

Costs

BCS 4 was first heard on 18 March 2026, where counsel for the Applicant had mentioned on behalf of the Respondent. However, during the hearing, the Deputy Registrar expressed his concerns on whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to assess BCS 4 or if the Bill of Costs should instead have been filed in the Syariah Court, as the underlying matter, namely, Syariah Court Summons No 61241, was a proceeding in the Syariah Court. The hearing was accordingly adjourned for counsel for the Applicant to conduct further research.

Costs

It was immediately apparent that reg 15(2) of the LAAR presents a dichotomy as to which court should assess an aided person’s costs. The default position is it should be assessed “in the court in which the proceedings were heard” (reg 15(2)(a)), ie, the Syariah Court in the present matter. However, if the Syariah Court “has no power to award costs”, the aided person’s costs shall be assessed in the State Courts or the General Division of the High Court, depending on the value of the claim for costs (reg 15(2)(b)).

Costs

The next question was therefore whether the Syariah Court has the power to award costs. The answer is clearly “yes”, although it does not immediately follow that the Syariah Court has the power to assess a solicitor’s bill of costs. The only relevant statutory provisions concerning costs in the Syariah Courts are s 53B of the Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“AMLA”) and r 31 of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Rules (Cap 3, R 1, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MMDR”). Section 53B of the AMLA reads:

Costs

In interpreting a statutory provision, the provision must be read harmoniously with the statutory context in which it is found as well as the objects and purposes underlying that statutory context: Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 354 at [21]; Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 1 SLR(R) 803 (“Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995”) at [44]. Section 53B of the AMLA confers on the Syariah Court the power to make party-and-party costs orders. The term “assess” should be read in the context of “the amount of any costs so ordered”, as it follows that a court empowered to make such costs orders must also be able to assess the quantum. Section 53B of the AMLA does not, in my view, concern the assessment of a solicitor’s bill of costs at all.

Costs

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the subsidiary legislation made pursuant to the AMLA, namely, r 31 of the MMDR, concerns only party-and-party costs. This provision reads:

Costs

It is clear from the provision as a whole that nothing in r 31 concerns the Syariah Court’s powers to assess a bill of costs delivered by a solicitor. Instead, it deals with the Syariah Court’s powers to make costs orders, including adverse costs orders against a solicitor (r 31(3)). Although r 31(4) of the MMDR allows the Syariah Court to “have regard to any practice applicable to civil proceedings in any court”, this is limited by the operative words, “[i]n making an order under this rule”.

Costs

It is also appropriate to refer to the statutory scheme underlying the recovery and assessment of solicitor-and-client costs in Singapore. The relevant provision in the assessment of a solicitor’s bill of costs is provided under s 120 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) (“LPA”), which is in turn located in Part 9 of the LPA. Section 120 reads:

Costs

Accordingly, it did not appear to me that the Syariah Court has the power to assess a solicitor’s bill of costs. For the avoidance of doubt, this conclusion was reached solely in the context of determining whether the District Court has jurisdiction to assess the Bill of Costs and ought not to be construed as a definitive pronouncement on the jurisdiction and/or powers of the Syariah Court. It would not be appropriate for a District Court to make such a pronouncement.

Costs

I return to reg 15(2) of the LAAR, which concerns the assessment of costs payable to solicitors engaged by the Respondent to provide legal aid. On a plain and literal reading, reg 15(2) requires that a bill of costs be assessed at a court which has no power to do so, so long as that court has the power to award costs. In my view, such a literal interpretation of reg 15(2) would lead to an unworkable or impracticable result and should be eschewed: Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Soh Seow Poh [2009] 4 SLR(R) 525 at [40]; Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850 at [38].

Costs

In my judgment, all three requirements were satisfied. It was clear that the purport of reg 15 of the LAAR, when read as a whole, concerns the specific situation of the assessment of a legal aid solicitor’s bill of costs, and not the court’s power to award costs generally. As I have alluded to at [12]–[13] above, there is no question that the jurisdiction to assess a solicitor’s bill is vested exclusively in “the General Division of the High Court, a Family Court, a District Court or a Magistrate’s Court”. Sections 116 and 120 of the LPA do not envisage the assessment of a solicitor’s bill in any other court or tribunal such as the Syariah Court.

Costs

As mentioned at [15] above, a literal interpretation of reg 15(2) would lead to the unworkable result of requiring a court which has the power to award party-and-party costs but not the power to assess a solicitor’s bill of costs to so assess that bill. Such a construction would also be contrary to primary legislation. Section 19(c) of the Interpretation Act mandates that “subsidiary legislation made under an Act must not be inconsistent with the provisions of any Act [emphasis added].” If a subsidiary legislation is inconsistent with any primary legislation, it would be ultra vires and ineffective: Augustine Zacharia Norman and another v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR(R) 746 at [6]. Accordingly, if reg 15(2) purports to require a bill of costs to be assessed at any other court, including a Syariah Court, it would be ultra vires s 120 of the LPA.

Costs

In the circumstances, pursuant to the principle of rectifying construction, I substituted the word “award” in reg 15(2)(b) of the LAAR with “assess”. Therefore, “if the court in which the proceedings were heard has no power to [assess] costs”, “the aided person’s costs shall be so assessed” in the State Courts or General Division of the High Court, as the case may be. In other words, a proper construction of reg 15(2) of the LAAR requires a legally aided person’s costs, being assessed as between solicitor and client for work done in proceedings in the Syariah Court, to be assessed in the State Courts or General Division of the High Court, as the case may be.

Costs

Having been satisfied that the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine BCS 4, I proceeded to assess the Bill of Costs and allowed BCS 4 as drawn.