Yeo Boong Hua and others v Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others

(a) the hearing of the action in Suit No 27 of 2009 before Choo Han Teck J in October 2012 (“the October 2012 Hearing”);

(b) the hearing of CA 156 of 2012 being the appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J (“the CA 156/2012 Hearing”);

(c) the hearing of the action in Suit No 27 of 2009 before me in 2014 (“the 2014 Trial”); and

(d) the hearing of the plaintiffs’ claims based on the torts of conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract before me in 2017 (“the 2017 Torts Hearing”).

Unless otherwise stated, the expression “costs” includes disbursements.

[2] The background to this action has been set out in my judgment dated 6 August 2015 and in judgments of the Court of Appeal subsequently. It was also summarised in my supplementary judgment dated 17 October 2017 for the 2017 Torts Hearing.

(a) the 2nd defendant, Singapore Agro Agricultural Pte Ltd (“SAA”);

(b) the 3rd defendant, Koh Khong Meng (“Koh”);

(c) the 5th defendant, Tan Huat Chye (“Tan Senior”); and

(d) the 7th defendant, Tan Chee Beng (“Tan CB”).

[5] At the time of the 2014 Trial before me:

(a) Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (“R&T”) acted for the 1st to 4th defendants and also for Tan CB;

(b) JLC Advisors LLP acted for Tan Senior; and

(c) Khor Thiam Beng & Partners acted for Ong.

[6] By the time of the 2017 Torts Hearing:

(a) R&T had ceased to act for Tan CB. They continued to act for the 1st to 4th defendants and still do so.

(b) JLC Advisors LLP had ceased to act for Tan Senior. Instead, Optimus Chambers LLC (“Optimus”) acted for both Tan CB and Tan Senior and still do so.

(c) Ong was unrepresented and did not participate in the hearing.

[10] Tan Senior also took an active role in the 2014 Trial, as well as hearings before and after that. In Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua [2017] SGCA 21 at [179], the Court of Appeal also said that Tan Senior was rightly joined as a defendant in the present action.

[22] R&T submitted that although that was the estimate they had given then, this estimate should no longer apply for various reasons:

(a) the estimate was given before the costs guidelines in Appendix G were issued;

(b) the quantum of costs should be proportionate to the judgment sum and the plaintiffs had been granted damages amounting to only $1,338,312.50 by the Court of Appeal;

(c) the estimate was based on the assumption that the plaintiffs succeeded in all their claims and they did not succeed in all. Indeed, they had abandoned some of the claims; and

(d) the plaintiffs had spent unnecessary time on issues which were not material such as whether there was in existence a Back to Back Arrangement, the question of certain construction costs and the preparation of the accounts of the Joint Venture Companies in question. Also, the plaintiffs wasted two full days cross-examining Ong when they ultimately abandoned their conspiracy claim against him. Had they not pursued a claim against Ong, Ong’s lawyer need not have cross-examined the plaintiffs’ witnesses for six days.

[25] Even applying Appendix G, R&T’s suggestion of $378,000 was not necessarily correct. R&T had used a daily tariff based on a simple tort or contract case. This is $15,000 a day with a tiered approach as follows:

[26] However, for a complex tort or contract case, the daily tariff is $17,000 a day. For complex corporate/company law disputes, the daily tariff is $20,000.

(a) they were prepared to proceed with the trial in 2012 and did not request that the action be summarily determined;

(b) the defendants were successful before Choo J although the plaintiffs succeeded in their appeal against Choo J’s decision; and

(c) there would be double-counting as the documents for the intended trial in 2012 were substantially similar to those for the 2014 Trial.

[34] The fact that the defendants did not ask for a summary determination in 2012 is neither here nor there as the plaintiffs also did not ask for such a determination. Accordingly, the first argument also did not assist the Four Defendants.

[38] Likewise, the getting-up for the October 2012 Hearing would overlap with the getting-up for the CA 156/2012 Hearing for which the plaintiffs were seeking another $50,000.

[45] I now consider the quantum of disbursements. After determining this, I will then consider the question of proportionality bearing in mind that the damages granted to the plaintiffs amount to about $1.338m (see [22(b)] above).

[48] In the plaintiffs’ later written submissions dated 14 December 2018, they treated the disbursements for the October 2012 Hearing as part of the disbursements for the 2014 Trial. Hence there was no separate claim for disbursements for the October 2012 Hearing. In the latest letter dated 27 February 2019 from the plaintiffs’ lawyers, they clarified that the total sum claimed as disbursements in Annex C, excluding GST, is $813,581.42 as follows:

[49] For the 2017 Torts Hearing, the plaintiffs claimed an additional $1,000 as disbursements.

[51] In the absence of any objection by R&T of any item claimed by the plaintiffs as disbursements for the CA 156/2012 Hearing, I grant the plaintiffs $30,289.31 as disbursements for the CA 156/2012 Hearing.

[52] R&T’s main dispute on disbursements was in respect of various items claimed by the plaintiffs for the 2014 Trial. In all, R&T submitted that the plaintiffs be allowed $148,783.10 as disbursements for the 2014 Trial. I will set out the details of R&T’s objections below.

[57] I agree with R&T on this point. The plaintiffs’ claim for $299,796.29 for Mr Reid’s services is not allowed.

[58] The second single highest sum of disbursements which R&T objected to was the plaintiff’s claim for witness allowance of $20,000 for each of the three plaintiffs totalling $60,000. The $20,000 was based on 37 days x $540.50 per day.

[60] R&T also objected to the plaintiffs’ claim of $1,850 being sustenance and transport expenses for each of the three plaintiffs totalling $5,550. The $1,850 was based on 37 days x $50 per day. R&T submitted that the plaintiffs failed to explain how such expenses were necessarily incurred for the purpose of attending court, citing LHE (HC) at [45]–[46].

[65] Accordingly, I do not allow the plaintiffs’ claim of $60,000 for attendance in court for the three of them.

[66] As for their claim for sustenance and transport, this is again not usually claimed for lay litigants themselves. Transport is often claimed for their solicitors and perhaps for other witnesses. Even then, sustenance is not usually claimed for solicitors or witnesses except perhaps at times for witnesses who do not reside in Singapore and incur higher expenses for sustenance than in their place of residence.

[67] The plaintiffs’ reply submissions did not elaborate why they should be allowed to claim sustenance and transport expenses at $50 per day. The plaintiffs did not say that they had to pay more for their meals because of court attendance. Some transport expenses would have been incurred but there was no elaboration on quantum. Also, the question arises as to whether all three of them were required to be present every day and also whether they came in the same transport.

[68] I will not allow the plaintiffs’ claim for sustenance and transport expenses totalling $5,550 for themselves.

[69] R&T also objected to various miscellaneous expenses amounting to $5,104.91 for various items such as:

(a) filing Notice of Change of Solicitors;

(b) requests for file inspection, “soft copy” certified transcripts, notes of evidence of hearings for summonses;

(c) bizfile/ACRA/case searches;

(d) photocopying charges paid to third parties; and

(e) short payment of court fees.

[70] The plaintiffs did not respond to this objection in their reply submissions. As a matter of general principle, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim for expenses incurred because they changed solicitors. Payment to previous solicitors for photocopying charges for copies requested by present solicitors are also not claimable. The burden is on the plaintiffs to justify each and every item claimed. In the absence of elaboration from the plaintiffs, I disallow their claim for the expenses of $5,104.91 stated at [68] above.

[71] R&T objected to the plaintiffs’ claim for $4,794.67 as fees paid to the Singapore Mediation Centre being the plaintiffs’ share of fees for mediation. The plaintiffs did not seek to justify this claim in their reply submissions. I disallow this claim for $4,794.67.

[73] R&T also objected to other disbursements:

[74] They submitted that as a lengthy trial could have been avoided for reasons mentioned, there should be a discount of 60%, ie, about $267,600 should be discounted.

[76] I allow a 20% deduction for items (a) and (b) at [72] above, ie, a deduction of $53,400 and $12,216.18 which is rounded to $12,200.

[77] The plaintiffs claimed $813,581.42 as disbursements for the 2014 Trial (see [47] above). I make the following deductions:

[78] The plaintiffs are allowed $368,008.45 for the 2014 Trial and this includes disbursements for the October 2012 Hearing. As submitted by the plaintiffs, GST (of 7%) is allowed on disbursements of $4,995.89.

[79] I grant the plaintiffs $300 as disbursements for the 2017 Torts Hearing.

[80] The total disbursements are therefore:

[85] Therefore, I grant to the plaintiffs:

(a) $435,500.00 as costs for the Four Hearings; and

(b) $398,597.76 as disbursements for the Four Hearings, with GST as mentioned.

[86] These sums are payable by the Four Defendants jointly and severally to the plaintiffs.

[88] To the extent that any sum has already been paid to the plaintiffs pursuant to either or both orders of 1 and 11 December 2015, the plaintiffs are to give credit for that sum and the balance payment under [84] is to be paid by the Four Defendants jointly and severally.