Judgment Header
Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters [2015] SGHC 239
Court DecisionSGHC
[2015] SGHC 239
[2015] SGHC 239
General Division of the High Court of Singapore14 Sept 2015Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013 (Summons No 3317 and 3318 of 2014), Originating Summons No 204 of 2014 and Bill of Costs No 173 of 2014 (Summons No 5186 of 2014)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“(a) CA 226 is the Plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of the High Court in Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters [2015] SGHC 239 (“Tommy Choo”), insofar as the High Court did not to allow costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is the respon”
“In Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters [2015] SGHC 239 (“Tommy Choo”), the instructing solicitors had claimed $344,300 as section 1 costs. $127,500 was allowed on taxation, and that was reduced on review to $50,000. Under section 3, $944,310.80 was claim”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013 (Summons No 3317 and 3318 of 2014), Originating Summons No 204 of 2014 and Bill of Costs No 173 of 2014 (Summons No 5186 of 2014)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-09-14
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.