LITT
Try LITT free
Rafid Gourmet v DIF Interior Decoration [2023] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Finality in Construction Disputes
When the DIFC Court shuts the door on post-judgment evidence, practitioners must reckon with the absolute finality of perfected orders.
Nest Investments v Deloitte [2021] DIFC TCD 003: The High Cost of Procedural Missteps in Lebanese Law Disputes
How a multi-year battle over audit failures and limitation periods redefined the DIFC’s approach to foreign law evidence
Oberlin v Ovidiu [2026] DIFC ARB 008: The Proportionality Threshold in Arbitration Enforcement Costs
H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi clarifies the court's discretion in awarding costs for successful enforcement applications. On 26 March 2026, H.E.
Murif v Mipy [2023] DIFC ARB 003: The Limits of Proportionality in Arbitral Costs Assessments
How a procedural oversight in the Bill of Costs triggered a successful appeal against the Registrar’s assessment. On 21 November 2023, H.E.
Octavia v Oisin [2025] DIFC ARB 023: The Standard of Reasonableness in Post-Enforcement Costs Recovery
How the DIFC Courts are streamlining the path to full indemnity in arbitration enforcement proceedings. On 15 August 2025, H.E.
Limsa v Lordon [2020] DIFC ARB 008: The High Cost of Mischaracterizing Disciplinary Rulings as Arbitral Awards
Justice Wayne Martin’s rebuke of procedural confusion and the strict application of RDC 34.15 in the wake of a failed challenge.
Olen v Oreta [2025] DIFC ARB 031: The Proportionality Threshold in Post-Award Costs Recovery
How the DIFC Courts are recalibrating the standard of 'fair and reasonable' legal spend in enforcement proceedings On 2 October 2025, H.E.
Mirifa v Mahur [2023] DIFC ARB 009: The High Cost of Asset Concealment and the Limits of Procedural Duplication
How the DIFC Courts are tightening the screws on recalcitrant debtors in USD 1.6 billion enforcement battles. On 21 August 2025, H.E.
Ohtli v Onora [2026] DIFC ARB 034: The High Cost of Procedural Overreach in Anti-Suit Injunctions
How the DIFC Courts are using costs assessments to police the boundaries of anti-suit litigation On March 24, 2026, H.E.
Nalani v Netty [2025] DIFC ARB 027: The High Cost of Procedural Obstruction in Enforcement Proceedings
How H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi’s latest costs order signals a hardening stance against meritless jurisdictional challenges in the DIFC. On 2 October 2025, H.E.
XNG v XNH [2026] SGHCF 4
Indemnity costs are not warranted in family law disputes where the conduct, while reprehensible, does not meet the high threshold of unreasonableness, and standard costs are sufficient.
XHG v XHH [2025] SGHCF 13
The court has discretion to award costs in family proceedings, and the duty of full and frank disclosure is paramount, with failure to disclose material information justifying indemnity costs.
Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2006] SGHC 20
The court held that a successful party may be deprived of full costs if they have been indiscriminate in their litigation conduct, such as by filing voluminous irrelevant documents or failing to be selective in the points taken, thereby unnecessarily increasing the costs of proce
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa (also known as Lim Le Hoa and Lily Arief Husni) and Others [2003] SGHC 143
The court held that costs of an inquiry should follow the event unless there are special reasons to deprive the successful party of costs, and that unnecessary or unreasonable protraction of proceedings by a successful party may justify a reduction in costs under Order 59 rule 6A
Ong Tean Hoe v Hong Kong Industrial Company Private Limited [2002] SGHC 189
The court affirmed the registrar's taxation of costs, noting that while the case was not factually complex, the unique nature of the injury (amputation of both hands) justified more detailed research and preparatory work.
Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council [2015] SGHC 58
The High Court has the power to order costs against a regulatory body like the Singapore Medical Council in disciplinary proceedings, and such costs are determined by a multi-factorial approach rather than a strict 'costs follow the event' rule.
Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter
The Court of Appeal held that the principle of proportionality is an inherent feature of the assessment of legal costs in Singapore, and that costs must bear a reasonable relationship to the value of the claim.
RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED v SHANGHAI ELECTRIC GROUP CO LTD
The court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of costs in an SICC setting-aside application, moderating the claimed Singapore counsel fees based on a comparison with the unsuccessful party's costs and prior estimates.
TAJUDIN BIN GULAM RASUL & Anor v SURIAYA BINTE HAJA MOHIDEEN
The court has the inherent power to impose personal costs on advocates and solicitors who cite fictitious AI-generated authorities, based on a three-stage test assessing improper conduct, unnecessary costs, and just compensation.