CHAN HUI PENG v PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD

"Mr Sim was served with a subpoena, but the trial ended before he was scheduled to attend as a witness. He went to court because he was accompanying his wife, the plaintiff; he did not do so as a subpoenaed witness." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 69

Case Information

• Citation: [2022] SGHC 232 (Para heading / cover page)
• Court: In the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Para heading / cover page)
• Case Number: Suit No 1022 of 2018 (Para heading / cover page)
• Date of Decision: 23 September 2022 (Para heading / cover page)
• Coram: Andre Maniam J (Para heading / cover page)
• Counsel for the Defendant: Anparasan s/o Kamachi and Tan Hui Ying Grace (WhiteFern LLC) (Para 70)
• Counsel for the Plaintiff / Applicant: Sim Kwang Jui in person (Para 70)
• Area of Law: Civil Procedure — Witnesses (Para heading / cover page)
• Judgment Length: The extraction does not provide a page count or word count, and that is not answerable from the material provided.

Summary

This decision concerned a narrow but practically important question in civil procedure: whether a person served with a subpoena is entitled to payment from the subpoenaing party when the trial ends before he is actually required to attend as a witness. The court framed the issue as what compensation, if any, a subpoenaed witness is entitled to if the trial ends before he is required to attend court as a witness. It then asked specifically whether Mr Sim was entitled to payment for expenses and for time. (Para 11) (Para 12)

The court held that Mr Sim was not entitled to payment because his attendance at court was not attendance in compliance with the subpoena. He went to court because he was accompanying his wife, Ms Chan, and not because he was attending as a subpoenaed witness. The court therefore concluded that he had not spent time or incurred expenses in complying with the subpoena for which he ought reasonably to be compensated. (Para 35) (Para 40) (Para 69)

The court also rejected Mr Sim’s attempt to recover a range of claimed sums, including transport, cancellation fees, filing fees, disbursements, and time-based compensation. It reasoned that the old subpoena rule only required reasonable expenses to be tendered to compel attendance, while the newer rules on witness compensation and litigant-in-person costs did not assist him because he was not actually complying with an order to attend court. The court further observed that there was no basis for requiring PUB or its lawyers to pay for repeated unsuccessful claims. (Para 13) (Para 18) (Para 42) (Para 68)

What Were the Key Facts Leading to Mr Sim’s Claim for Payment?

The factual setting was straightforward but decisive. In November 2020, the underlying suit between Ms Chan and PUB went to trial. The trial was scheduled for two weeks, but it lasted only four days before it settled when Ms Chan accepted an offer to settle that PUB had earlier made. Mr Sim, Ms Chan’s husband, accompanied her to and from court on those four trial days. (Para 1) (Para 2)

"In November 2020, the suit between the plaintiff (“Ms Chan”) and the defendant (“PUB”) went to trial. The trial was scheduled for two weeks but only proceeded for four days, when it was settled by Ms Chan accepting an offer to settle that PUB had earlier made." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 1

The subpoena issue arose because Mr Sim had been subpoenaed by PUB as a witness, but his attendance as a witness was scheduled for the second week of trial. Since the trial ended after four days, he never had to attend court in that capacity. The court found that even before the subpoena was served, he had intended to attend the trial because it was scheduled to commence on 23 November 2020. That factual finding mattered because it showed that his presence at court was not caused by the subpoena. (Para 2) (Para 21) (Para 30)

"Ms Chan’s husband, Mr Sim Kwang Jui (“Mr Sim”) accompanied her to and from court on the four trial days. Mr Sim had also been subpoenaed by PUB as a witness, but his attendance as a witness was scheduled for the second week, and so he never had to attend court as a witness." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 2

The court also noted that the subpoena was served on 15 November 2020 by PUB’s lawyers, WhiteFern. Mr Sim had applied for leave for the first week of trial on 12 November 2020, and that leave was approved the same day. These facts reinforced the court’s view that his attendance at court during the first four days was part of his plan to accompany his wife, not a response to the subpoena. (Para 23) (Para 24) (Para 37)

"The subpoena was then served on him on 15 November 2020, by PUB’s lawyers WhiteFern." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 24

How Did the Court Frame the Legal Questions About Compensation for a Subpoenaed Witness?

The court framed the dispute in two layers. First, it asked the general question of what compensation, if any, a subpoenaed witness is entitled to if the trial ends before he is required to attend court as a witness. Second, it broke that down into two concrete questions: whether Mr Sim was entitled to any payment for his expenses and whether he was entitled to any payment for his time. This framing was important because it kept the analysis focused on the legal consequences of subpoena compliance, rather than on Mr Sim’s broader dissatisfaction with the litigation process. (Para 11) (Para 12)

"The main issue may be framed as: what compensation (if any) is a subpoenaed witness entitled to, if the trial ends before he is required to attend court as a witness?" — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 11

The court’s framing also signaled that the answer would depend on whether the witness had actually complied with the subpoena. The court did not treat the mere existence of a subpoena as enough to generate a right to payment. Instead, it asked whether the witness had spent time or incurred expenses in complying with the subpoena. That distinction became the central analytical thread running through the judgment. (Para 12) (Para 40) (Para 42)

"More specifically: (a) Is Mr Sim entitled to any payment for his expenses, for having been subpoenaed? (b) Is Mr Sim entitled to any payment for his time, for having been subpoenaed?" — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 12

That framing also explains why the court repeatedly returned to the factual question of why Mr Sim was at court. If he was there because he was accompanying Ms Chan, then the subpoena could not be the legal source of his claimed expenses or time loss. If, by contrast, he had actually attended in compliance with the subpoena, the analysis would have been different. The court found the former, not the latter. (Para 35) (Para 40) (Para 69)

What Did the Court Say About the Governing Rules on Subpoenaed Witness Expenses?

The court began with Order 38 rule 22 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), which provides that a witness shall not be compelled to attend on a subpoena unless a reasonable sum to cover his expenses of going to, remaining at, and returning from court is extended to him. The court also noted that the equivalent rule in the Rules of Court 2021 is Order 15 rule 4(9). These provisions established the baseline principle that a subpoenaed witness is entitled to reasonable travel and attendance expenses. (Para 13) (Para 14)

"A witness shall not be compelled to attend on a subpoena unless a reasonable sum to cover his expenses of going to, remaining at, and returning from, Court is extended to him." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 13

The court then relied on authority explaining the scope of that rule. It quoted Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Yang Qiang for the proposition that the litigant who subpoenas the witness is obliged, under Order 38 rule 22, to compensate the witness’s travel expenses. That authority was used to show that the rule is about the costs of actual attendance in response to the subpoena, not about broader forms of compensation. (Para 19)

"The litigant who subpoenas the witness would be obliged, under O 38 r 22, to compensate the witness’s travel expenses" — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 19

But the court also emphasized the limits of the rule. It observed that beyond a tender of expenses under the rule, a witness of fact has no right to make attendance in compliance with the subpoena conditional on payment of any other amount, whether for opportunity cost or for the costs of seeking legal advice and complying with the subpoena. That observation was central because it rejected the idea that a subpoena automatically opens the door to a wider compensation claim. (Para 16)

"It would seem that beyond a tender of expenses as provided by this rule, a witness of fact has no right to make his attendance in compliance with the subpoena conditional on tender of any other amount, whether by way of compensation in respect of opportunity cost incurred in making himself available to give evidence or the costs of seeking legal advice and complying with the subpoena." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 16

Why Did the Court Reject Mr Sim’s Claim for Time-Based Compensation?

The court’s answer was that Mr Sim was not entitled to time-based compensation because he was not attending court in compliance with the subpoena. The newer Rules of Court 2021 provision, Order 21 rule 7, allows a witness who complies with an order to attend court or an order to produce documents to claim reasonable compensation for time and expenses in complying with the order upon request. But the court found that Mr Sim did not fall within that language because he was not complying with an order to attend court. (Para 18) (Para 42)

"A witness who complies with an order to attend court or an order to produce documents is entitled to claim reasonable compensation for his or her time and expenses in complying with the order from the requesting party upon request." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 14

The court’s reasoning was factual as well as textual. It found that when Mr Sim went to court during the period of 23 to 26 November 2020, he was not attending on the subpoena and was not complying with an order to attend court; he was simply accompanying his wife, the plaintiff. Because his presence was attributable to that personal choice, not to the subpoena, he had not spent time at court “complying” with the order. (Para 35) (Para 42)

"When Mr Sim went to court in the period of 23–26 November 2020, he was not attending on the subpoena, he was not complying with an order to attend court; he was simply accompanying his wife, the plaintiff." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 35

The court also rejected the idea that Mr Sim could recover for time spent waiting at court before the trial ended. It observed that what a witness might receive as expenses of attending on a subpoena has nothing to do with compensating him for not being permitted to sit in while earlier witnesses testify. That observation underscored the court’s refusal to convert the subpoena into a general entitlement to compensation for being present in the courtroom. (Para 38)

"what a witness might receive as expenses of attending on a subpoena has nothing to do with compensating him for not being permitted to sit in while earlier witnesses testify." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 38

How Did the Court Deal With Mr Sim’s Claimed Expenses, Including Transport and Cancellation Fees?

Mr Sim claimed a total of $7,826.28, broken down into several items. The court considered those claims individually and rejected them. It held that there was no basis to allow compensation based on cancellation fees, and it further concluded that Mr Sim should not be awarded his transport expenses in any event. The reason was the same throughout: the expenses were not incurred in complying with the subpoena. (Para 33) (Para 49) (Para 55)

"Mr Sim now claims the sum of $7,826.28, for which he provides the following breakdown …" — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 33

The court’s treatment of cancellation fees was especially clear. It found that there was no basis for requiring PUB or WhiteFern to pay for Mr Sim to pursue unsuccessful claims after unsuccessful claims. That statement reflected the court’s view that the litigation over payment had gone beyond the proper scope of the subpoena issue. The court was not prepared to treat collateral costs generated by Mr Sim’s own persistence as recoverable against the subpoenaing party or its lawyers. (Para 68)

"There is no basis for requiring PUB or WhiteFern to pay for Mr Sim to pursue unsuccessful claim after unsuccessful claim." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 68

The court also tied the expense analysis back to the factual finding that Mr Sim had intended to attend the trial even before the subpoena was served. That meant his transport and related costs were not caused by the subpoena. Since the rule only compensates expenses of going to, remaining at, and returning from court in response to the subpoena, the court concluded that the claimed transport expenses could not be recovered. (Para 21) (Para 40) (Para 55)

"Accordingly, Mr Sim should not be awarded his transport expenses in any event." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 55

Why Did the Court Say Mr Sim Was Not Attending “On the Subpoena”?

The court’s reasoning on this point was decisive. It found that Mr Sim had already intended to attend the trial before the subpoena was served, and that he accompanied Ms Chan to court on the first four days of trial. Because his presence was explained by his role as a spouse accompanying the plaintiff, the court concluded that he was not attending on the subpoena. That factual conclusion defeated both his expense claim and his time claim. (Para 21) (Para 35) (Para 40)

"Even before the subpoena was served on him, Mr Sim had intended to attend the trial of the suit, which was scheduled to commence on 23 November 2020." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 21

The court also found that Mr Sim never had to attend court as a witness because the trial ended before his scheduled witness slot. That meant there was no actual compliance with the subpoena in the sense required by the rules. The court repeatedly returned to this point because it distinguished between being subpoenaed and actually attending as a witness. The former alone was insufficient. (Para 2) (Para 30)

"Mr Sim thus never had to attend court as a witness." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 30

On the court’s analysis, the subpoena did not create a compensable burden where the witness’s actual court attendance was for another reason. The court therefore treated Mr Sim’s presence as legally irrelevant to the compensation question, except insofar as it showed that he was not within the class of persons the rules were designed to protect. That is why the court concluded that he had not spent time or incurred expenses in complying with the subpoena for which he ought reasonably to be compensated. (Para 40) (Para 69)

How Did the Court Address the Newer Rules on Witness Compensation and Litigant-in-Person Costs?

The court considered whether the Rules of Court 2021 assisted Mr Sim. It noted that Order 15 rule 4(9) provides for compensation to a witness who complies with an order to attend court or produce documents. But because Mr Sim was not complying with such an order, the provision did not apply. The court expressly stated that, as it found, Mr Sim was not at court “complying” with an order to attend court and had not spent any time at court “complying” with the order. (Para 14) (Para 42)

"As I found, Mr Sim was not at the court “[complying] with an order to attend court”; he had not spent any time at the court “[complying] with [the] order”." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 42

The court also referred to Order 59 rule 18A of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), which allows the court to award costs to a successful party who is not represented by solicitors so as to reasonably compensate that party for time, work, and expenses incurred reasonably. It further quoted the corresponding principle that on taxation of a litigant in person’s costs, there may be allowed such costs as would reasonably compensate the litigant for time expended and expenses reasonably incurred. But these provisions did not help Mr Sim because they concern costs in litigation, not compensation for a subpoenaed witness who was not actually complying with the subpoena. (Para 65) (Para 66)

"The Court may award costs to a successful party who is not represented by solicitors that would compensate him or her reasonably for the time and work required for the proceedings and for all expenses incurred reasonably." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 65

"On a taxation of the costs of a litigant in person, there may be allowed such costs as would reasonably compensate the litigant for the time expended by him, together with all expenses reasonably incurred." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 66

The court then relied on Ong Wui Teck to emphasize that litigant-in-person costs are not available as of right and do not displace the fundamental principle that costs follow the event. That authority was used to show that even where a person is litigating in person, the court retains a discretion and the ordinary costs principles remain in place. It followed that Mr Sim could not use those rules to transform his unsuccessful witness-payment claim into a recoverable costs entitlement. (Para 67)

"the rule does not entitle a litigant-in-person to costs as of right: it only provides that he may be allowed reasonable compensation for the time and work required, and does not displace the fundamental principle that costs follow the event, ie, that the court generally awards costs to the successful party." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 67

What Did the Court Say About PUB’s Position and the Settlement Offer?

The court recorded that PUB’s position was that it was not obliged to pay Mr Sim anything, although WhiteFern said it could advise PUB to pay transport and meal expenses amounting to $34.59. That factual background showed that the dispute was not about whether some small amount might be offered as a matter of pragmatism, but whether there was any legal obligation to pay at all. The court ultimately accepted PUB’s position. (Para 4)

"PUB’s position was that it was not obliged to pay Mr Sim anything, but WhiteFern said they could advise PUB to pay for Mr Sim’s transport and meal expenses amounting to $34.59." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 4

The court also noted that PUB offered Mr Sim $1,000 to settle the matter, and that he turned down the offer. That fact was not treated as creating any legal entitlement, but it did form part of the broader narrative showing that the dispute could have ended earlier. The court later remarked that there was no basis for requiring PUB or WhiteFern to pay for repeated unsuccessful claims. (Para 7) (Para 68)

"At that point, PUB offered Mr Sim $1,000 to settle the matter." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 7

"Mr Sim turned down the $1,000 offer." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 7

The court’s treatment of the settlement offer was consistent with its overall approach: the legal question was not whether Mr Sim had been inconvenienced in a broad sense, but whether the subpoena created a compensable obligation. Since the court found that it did not, the rejected settlement offer remained just that—an offer, not an admission of liability. (Para 7) (Para 69)

What Was the Court’s Final Holding on Liability and Payment?

The court held that neither PUB nor its lawyers were obliged to pay Mr Sim anything for having subpoenaed him. This was the core dispositive conclusion. It followed from the court’s findings that he was not attending on the subpoena, was not complying with an order to attend court, and did not incur time or expenses in compliance with the subpoena. (Para 9) (Para 35) (Para 40)

"I decided that neither PUB nor its lawyers were obliged to pay Mr Sim anything for having subpoenaed him." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 9

The court then dismissed Mr Sim’s claims for payment. That dismissal covered the various heads of claim he had advanced, including transport, cancellation fees, and time-based compensation. The court’s conclusion was categorical rather than partial: because the legal foundation for payment was absent, the claims failed in full. (Para 69)

"Mr Sim’s claims for payment are dismissed." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 69

In practical terms, the judgment makes clear that a subpoenaed witness cannot recover money merely because he was served with a subpoena and later spent time at court for some other reason. The witness must show that the time and expenses were incurred in actual compliance with the subpoena or equivalent order. On the facts found here, Mr Sim could not do so. (Para 40) (Para 42) (Para 69)

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case matters because it draws a sharp line between being subpoenaed and actually attending court in compliance with the subpoena. That distinction is important for litigants, witnesses, and lawyers because it determines when the subpoenaing party must tender expenses and when a witness may seek compensation. The court’s analysis shows that the mere existence of a subpoena does not itself generate a free-standing right to payment. (Para 13) (Para 16) (Para 69)

"what compensation (if any) is a subpoenaed witness entitled to, if the trial ends before he is required to attend court as a witness?" — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 11

The case also matters because it clarifies the limits of witness compensation under both the older and newer procedural regimes. Under the older rule, the witness is protected as to reasonable expenses of attendance. Under the newer rule, compensation for time and expenses is available only where the witness actually complies with the order. The judgment therefore helps practitioners distinguish between a witness who is genuinely compelled to attend and a person who happens to be at court for unrelated reasons. (Para 13) (Para 14) (Para 42)

"A witness who complies with an order to attend court or an order to produce documents is entitled to claim reasonable compensation for his or her time and expenses in complying with the order from the requesting party upon request." — Per Andre Maniam J, Para 14

Finally, the case is a reminder that courts will not permit collateral or repetitive claims to expand a narrow procedural entitlement. The court’s refusal to require PUB or WhiteFern to pay for unsuccessful claims reinforces the principle that compensation must be anchored in the legal source of the obligation, not in the claimant’s persistence. For practitioners, the case is a useful authority on subpoena expenses, witness attendance, and the limits of litigant-in-person style compensation arguments in a witness-payment dispute. (Para 68) (Para 67)

Cases Referred To

Legislation Referenced

• Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), Order 38 rule 22 (Para 13)
• Rules of Court 2021, Order 15 rule 4(9) (Para 14)
• Rules of Court 2021, Order 21 rule 7 (Para 18)
• Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), Order 59 rule 18A (Para 65)

Source Documents

• Original Judgment — Singapore Courts
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2022] SGHC 232 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.