Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC(I) 14
- Title: Bidzina Ivanishvili & 4 Ors v Credit Suisse Trust Limited
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Suit No: Suit No 4 of 2021
- Judgment date (reasons): 29 August 2023
- Date judgment reserved: 19 September 2023
- Judge: Patricia Bergin IJ
- Plaintiffs/Applicants: Bidzina Ivanishvili; Ekaterine Khvedelidze; Tsotne Ivanishvili (a minor suing by litigation representative Ekaterine Khvedelidze); Gvantsa Ivanishvili; Bera Ivanishvili
- Defendant/Respondent: Credit Suisse Trust Limited
- Legal area(s): Civil Procedure; Costs; Final orders; Trustees (context)
- Statutes referenced: Trustees Act
- Related earlier judgment: Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust [2023] SGHC(I) 9 (delivered 26 May 2023) (“Judgment”)
- Judgment length: 55 pages; 14,603 words
Summary
This SICC judgment concerns the finalisation of orders following an earlier liability and relief decision in Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust [2023] SGHC(I) 9. The present decision focuses on three main matters: (i) quantification of the compensation payable by the defendant under a “Model 1B” methodology, (ii) determination of the appropriate costs award (including the extent of any discount and the treatment of post-transfer and expert-related costs), and (iii) whether a declaration should be made that a Deed of Amendment and Restatement is void and/or unenforceable.
On quantification, the court accepted updated expert calculations to align the Model 1B computation with the date of breach found in the earlier Judgment—30 March 2008 rather than 31 December 2007. After resolving issues about the correct commencement date and the proper treatment of settlement payments to avoid double recovery, the court fixed the compensation at US$742.73m.
On costs, the court applied the established “open-ended inquiry” approach under O 110 r 46 of the Rules of Court 2014, guided by Court of Appeal and SICC authority. It emphasised the evidential framework for “reasonable costs”, including the need for a breakdown of claimed costs and the shifting evidential burden once the successful party provides sufficient information. The decision also addresses how interest on costs should run and how to treat categories of costs arising before and after the transfer of proceedings to the SICC.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute arose in the context of trust administration and alleged breach by Credit Suisse Trust Limited. The earlier Judgment (delivered 26 May 2023) determined liability and made findings relevant to the date of breach, which became central to the quantification exercise in this costs and final orders judgment. The plaintiffs—Bidzina Ivanishvili and related parties, including a minor represented by a litigation representative—sought compensation and related declarations concerning trust-related instruments.
After the liability decision, the court required further assistance from experts to update the Model 1B calculations. The earlier Judgment had requested that the Model 1B computations be updated to commence from the date of breach (30 March 2008) through to the date of Judgment, while taking into account a settlement amount so that the plaintiffs would not obtain double recovery. This meant that the quantification stage was not merely mechanical; it required careful reconciliation between the breach date, the performance of relevant portfolios, and the settlement payments already received.
Following the liability Judgment, the parties’ forensic accounting experts—Mr Davies for the plaintiffs and Mr Nicholson for the defendant—conferred but were unable to agree on the amount payable. Each expert then produced a report dated 25 August 2023 to assist the court. The disagreement included (a) the correct commencement date for the Model 1B calculations (including the effect of the breach date falling on a Sunday), (b) the correct end date (updated to 26 May 2023), and (c) the correct treatment of the settlement amount referenced in the earlier Judgment.
In parallel, the parties engaged in costs submissions. Some costs were agreed, including costs for work done prior to transfer to the SICC and costs for certain interlocutory applications. However, there remained contested categories, notably post-transfer costs, quantum experts’ fees, and the extent to which costs should be discounted for various reasons. The defendant also raised issues about interest on costs, including the date from which interest should apply.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
First, the court had to quantify the compensation payable under the Model 1B framework. This required the court to determine the correct computational parameters in light of the earlier finding that the breach occurred on 30 March 2008 rather than 31 December 2007. The issue also required the court to decide how settlement payments should be treated to avoid double recovery, including whether the settlement amount should be deducted in full or only in part (for example, only the component relating to a particular trust account).
Second, the court had to determine the appropriate costs order. While the general principle that costs follow the event was not in dispute (the plaintiffs prevailed), the parties disagreed on the quantum of costs and whether any discount should be applied. This raised questions about the correct approach to assessing “reasonable costs” under O 110 r 46 of the Rules of Court 2014, the evidential requirements for cost breakdowns, and the treatment of different categories of costs (including post-transfer costs and expert fees).
Third, the court had to consider whether a declaration ought to be made that the Deed of Amendment and Restatement is void and/or unenforceable. Although the provided extract truncates the later discussion, the judgment’s structure indicates that this declaration issue was one of the three principal matters reserved for determination in the final orders stage.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Quantification under Model 1B and settlement treatment. The court began by addressing the quantification exercise. The earlier Judgment had requested updated Model 1B calculations to run from the breach date to the date of Judgment, and to account for settlement payments to ensure no double recovery. The experts’ reports dated 25 August 2023 provided competing calculations. Mr Davies adjusted the commencement date from 31 December 2007 to 30 March 2008 for all accounts other than Meadowsweet’s account 75, which remained at 31 December 2008. He also adjusted the end date from 30 September 2021 to 26 May 2023. These changes reduced the original Model 1B value from US$926.04m to US$781.51m, reflecting both the later start date and significantly reduced performance of the Benchmark Portfolio between 1 October 2021 and 26 May 2023.
Correct deduction of settlement amounts. A key issue was the settlement amount referenced in the earlier Judgment. The court clarified that the settlement amount of US$79,430,773 was not a single undifferentiated figure; it comprised three components, only one of which related to Meadowsweet (US$30,011,498). The other two components related to Wellminstone SA and personal accounts held by the plaintiffs. Mr Davies calculated the deduction on two bases: (1) deducting the whole settlement amount, producing a total of US$702.8m; and (2) deducting only the Meadowsweet settlement amount, producing a total of US$742.73m. The court noted that both experts agreed the correct treatment was to adopt the second basis (deduct only the Meadowsweet component), even though they disagreed on the approach to be adopted in the broader computation.
Commencement date adjustments due to the breach date falling on a Sunday. The court also addressed the practical calendar effect: 30 March 2008 fell on a Sunday. Mr Davies’ calculations commenced from 31 March 2008, while Mr Nicholson’s commenced from 28 March 2008. The court considered both experts’ analyses and preferred Mr Davies’ approach as “the fairest and most reasonable in the circumstances.” This reflects a judicial preference for a method that aligns with the underlying economic logic of the model and avoids distortions that could arise from choosing a date that does not correspond to actual trading or valuation days relevant to the portfolio performance assumptions.
Costs: the “open-ended inquiry” and evidential burdens. Turning to costs, the court reiterated that the starting point under O 110 r 46 is that the defendant must pay the plaintiffs’ “reasonable costs” unless otherwise ordered. The court relied on the Court of Appeal’s articulation in Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd that the assessment is an “open-ended inquiry” requiring due regard to the specific facts, complexity, the amount claimed, and the nature and extent of differences between the parties. The court also relied on SICC guidance in Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter.
The court explained the expected evidential process. The successful party should provide a breakdown enabling the court to assess reasonableness, typically including hours claimed, who performed the work (with seniority and hourly rates), and explanations of the type of work. It also noted that such information may be broken down by litigation stages where helpful. Once the successful party provides the necessary information, the evidential burden shifts to the unsuccessful party to show that the claimed costs are not reasonable. The court further observed that the “best evidence” the unsuccessful party can often adduce is information about the costs it incurred correspondingly for the matter.
Practice Directions and Form 24 costs schedules. The court discussed the SICC Practice Directions, which allow the court to require a costs schedule with closing submissions and provide Form 24 as a sample schedule divided into seven areas of work (including commencement/pleadings, CMC/interlocutory hearings, disclosure, affidavits, expert evidence, preparation for hearings, and attending hearings). Although the parties were not required to provide a Form 24 schedule in the usual way, the plaintiffs filed a costs schedule in Form 24 format as an annexure to their reply submissions on costs. This prompted further written submissions, illustrating how procedural choices can affect the court’s ability to scrutinise and quantify claimed costs.
Agreed costs and contested categories. The court recorded that the parties had agreed on several cost components. These included S$85,000 for work done from 25 August 2017 to 8 March 2021 prior to transfer to the SICC, and S$482,551.40 for costs and disbursements for interlocutory applications (subject to two exceptions). The parties also agreed on interest rates: simple interest at 5.33% per annum on costs and post-judgment interest from 26 May 2023 to full payment. However, the parties disagreed on the date from which interest should apply to costs.
For contested costs, the plaintiffs sought S$6,741,421.98, including S$4,330,028.73 for post-transfer costs, S$2,382,893.25 for quantum experts’ fees, and smaller sums for specific interlocutory applications. The defendant proposed a lower figure of S$5,251,000, including S$3.5m for post-transfer costs, S$1.75m for quantum experts’ fees, and S$1,500 for costs for SUM 49, and it proposed that parties bear their own costs for SUM 11. The court’s analysis therefore necessarily involved assessing whether the plaintiffs’ claimed costs were “reasonable” in the sense required by the Rules and the authorities, and whether any discount should be applied.
What Was the Outcome?
On quantification, the court fixed the compensation payable by the defendant at US$742.73m. This figure resulted from accepting the plaintiffs’ preferred computational approach (as reflected in Mr Davies’ report), including the treatment of settlement payments by deducting only the Meadowsweet settlement component and selecting a commencement date consistent with the breach date falling on a Sunday.
On costs, the court proceeded to finalise the costs orders by applying the “reasonable costs” framework under O 110 r 46 and the evidential principles from Senda and Lao Holdings. While the extract does not include the final numerical costs orders, it is clear that the court was tasked with determining the appropriate discount (if any), the treatment of post-transfer costs and quantum experts’ fees, and the correct date from which interest on costs should run.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it demonstrates how the SICC finalises complex relief and costs after a liability judgment, particularly where quantification depends on expert modelling and where settlement payments must be carefully allocated to avoid double recovery. The court’s approach to settlement treatment—distinguishing components of a global settlement and deducting only the relevant portion—provides a practical template for future disputes involving partial settlements and multi-component compensation calculations.
From a costs perspective, the judgment reinforces the structured approach to “reasonable costs” under O 110 r 46. It highlights that the court expects detailed cost breakdowns (often in a Form 24 format) and that the evidential burden shifts after the successful party provides sufficient information. For litigators, this underscores the importance of preparing costs schedules with adequate granularity, including time records, professional seniority, hourly rates, and explanations of work performed, especially in high-value international commercial disputes.
Finally, the judgment’s reliance on Senda and Lao Holdings confirms that the costs inquiry remains fact-sensitive and open-ended, rather than governed by rigid tariffs. Practitioners should therefore anticipate that contested costs categories—such as expert fees and post-transfer work—will be scrutinised through the lens of reasonableness, proportionality to the issues, and the nature and extent of disagreements between parties.
Legislation Referenced
- Trustees Act
- Rules of Court 2014, O 110 r 46
Cases Cited
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96
- Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter [2022] SGHC(I) 6
- Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust [2023] SGHC(I) 9
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHCI 14 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.