Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another

[2] The defendants filed Summons No 5465 of 2021 on 25 November 2021, seeking:

(b) in the alternative, that the award of a certificate pursuant to O 59 r 19 of the ROC certifying that costs for the attendance and get up of two solicitors be allowed (“a Certificate of Two Counsel”);

(c) that the court fixes costs in lieu of taxation;

(d) that costs be awarded on an indemnity basis; and

(e) that costs of this application be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

[4] I shall now consider the defendants’ application for a Certificate of Three Counsel.

[6] Paragraph 1(2) of Appendix 1 to O 59 of the ROC further sets out the following factors to be considered when determining whether the use of more than two solicitors is reasonable (see Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155 at [36]):

(a) the complexity of the item or of the cause or matter in which it arises and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved;

(b) the skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility required of, and the time and labour expended by, the solicitor;

(c) the number and importance of the documents (however brief) prepared or perused;

(d) the place and circumstances in which the business involved is transacted;

(e) the urgency and importance of the cause or matter to the client; and

(f) where money or property is involved, its amount or value.

[7] Having regard to the above factors and all the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there are no exceptional circumstances which warrant the grant of a Certificate of Three Counsel for the following reasons:

(a) While the trial took more than 19 days (inclusive of closing submissions), the present case is not of such exceptional length and complexity as to warrant the use of more than two solicitors. This hearing is a far cry from the 82-day hearing in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2011] 1 SLR 582 (“Raffles Town Club”), which was one of the longest civil trials in Singapore (Raffles Town Club at [41]). Raffles Town Club also involved complex issues. In those circumstances, Chan Seng Onn J found at [41] that the use of more than two solicitors was reasonably necessary for the adequate preparation and presentation of the case and granted a Certificate of Three Counsel.

(b) In a similar vein, the fact that there were more than 31 volumes of documents does not mean that the case was of such exceptional complexity as to warrant a Certificate of Three Counsel, especially when compared to the 300 volumes of bundles of documents in Raffles Town Club (see Raffles Town Club at [41]).

(c) I find that the facts of the present case are closer to that in Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan and others [2017] SGHC 91 (“Parakou”), which took 14.5 days of trial and had 19 volumes of documents totalling 12,171 pages. Chua Lee Ming J found that the case, “although complex, was not of such a high degree of complexity as to warrant a certificate for costs for three solicitors” (Parakou at [15]).

(d) Further, the factual and legal issues in this present case were not so complex as to justify a Certificate of Three Counsel. I further note that there was significant overlap in the authorities referred to by both the plaintiffs and the defendants in their closing submissions. There was no real dispute on the law, and the dispute was confined within the four walls of established authorities on misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy in Singapore.

(e) The quantum of the plaintiffs’ claim, at S$5 million, is also not so exceptionally large as to warrant a Certificate of Three Counsel.

[8] Accordingly, I decline to grant a Certificate of Three Counsel as requested by the defendants.

[12] The defendants have asserted, inter alia, that (a) the plaintiffs had advanced a case that they knew was completely baseless; (b) the plaintiffs and their witnesses took inconsistent positions and were untruthful during the trial; and (c) the plaintiffs made disparaging allegations against the defendants’ character.

[16] For the above reasons I dismiss Summons No 5465 of 2021.