Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 209
- Title: Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd v Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Suit No: Suit No 477 of 2015
- Date of Judgment: 3 August 2023
- Judgment Type: Ex tempore judgment (civil procedure — costs)
- Judge: Tan Siong Thye SJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd (“Crescendas”)
- Defendant/Respondent: Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd (“JPW”)
- Counterclaim Parties: JPW as plaintiff in counterclaim; Crescendas as defendant in counterclaim
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (as reflected in the metadata)
- Length: 55 pages; approximately 15,500 words
- Related Earlier Decisions: Liability Judgment (HC) [2019] SGHC 4; Liability Judgment (CA) [2019] SGCA 63; Damages Judgment (HC) [2021] SGHC 189; Damages Judgment (AD) [2023] SGHC(A) 9
Summary
This decision concerns the final, costs-only phase of a long-running construction dispute between a property developer, Crescendas Bionics Pte Ltd, and a general building contractor, Jurong Primewide Pte Ltd. The underlying litigation had already been resolved on liability and damages through a bifurcated trial and subsequent appeals. What remained before the High Court in 2023 was the determination of the appropriate costs orders for the High Court proceedings across two tranches: (i) the first tranche dealing with liability, and (ii) the second tranche dealing with the assessment of general damages for delay.
The court reaffirmed the general principle that “costs follow the event”, while also addressing when it may be appropriate to depart from that principle. Applying the appellate outcomes and the parties’ relative success, the court held that Crescendas was the successful party for both the first and second tranches of the trial. While the parties agreed that Crescendas was entitled to costs for the second tranche, they disagreed on quantum; the court therefore assessed the appropriate legal costs and disbursements for that tranche, including expert-related expenses.
Practically, the judgment provides a structured approach to costs in complex, multi-stage litigation: it ties the costs entitlement to the substantive appellate results, distinguishes between liability and damages phases, and then itemises the quantum of costs and disbursements. For practitioners, it is a useful guide on how Singapore courts treat “success” in bifurcated trials and how they evaluate competing submissions on costs when the litigation has been substantially narrowed by appellate decisions.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute arose from a project in One-North involving the construction of Biopolis 3, a seven-storey multi-tenanted business park development at Biopolis Drive/Biomedical Grove. Crescendas, a property developer, engaged JPW, a general building contractor, under a Letter of Intent dated 26 June 2008 (with a four-page LOI signed on 30 June 2008). The LOI contemplated JPW’s role as management contractor for the Project, and it included an 18-month completion period for JPW’s construction obligations.
After the LOI was signed, the parties’ relationship deteriorated due to disagreements over obligations and scope. The Project experienced substantial delays and was ultimately certified as completed on 12 January 2011. It was undisputed that the completion time exceeded the LOI’s 18-month period by a significant margin. As is common in construction disputes, the delay question became central to liability and to the calculation of damages.
Crescendas commenced Suit No 477 of 2015 against JPW. JPW counterclaimed against Crescendas. The trial was bifurcated into two tranches. The first tranche addressed liability issues, including contractual interpretation and responsibility for delay. The second tranche addressed the assessment of general damages for the delay for which JPW was responsible, particularly because the liquidated damages provision in the LOI had been rendered inoperative due to Crescendas’ acts of prevention.
On appeal, the liability findings were largely affirmed, subject to corrections to arithmetic computation and to the treatment of the “capping beams” work in calculating the reasonable completion period. The appellate outcomes ultimately fixed the number of delay days attributable to each party. The damages assessment was then determined through further appellate review. By the time of the 2023 costs hearing, the substantive merits had effectively concluded, leaving only the costs consequences of the parties’ partial and overall success at different stages.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was costs entitlement and, specifically, whether Crescendas should be treated as the successful party for the first tranche (liability) and the second tranche (damages assessment). Although each party claimed victory in the liability phase, the court had to determine which party “won” in the relevant sense for costs purposes, taking into account the appellate adjustments and the final allocation of responsibility for delay and other liability issues.
A second issue concerned the quantum of costs for the second tranche. While the parties agreed that Crescendas was entitled to costs for the second tranche, they disagreed on the amount. This required the court to evaluate the reasonableness and appropriateness of legal costs incurred at that stage, including how to treat complexity, the extent of work done, and the relationship between the costs claimed and the issues actually determined.
Third, the court had to consider disbursements, especially expert-related expenses. In construction litigation, expert evidence is often substantial. The court therefore needed to decide which disbursements were recoverable and how to account for expert fees and related expenses in the overall costs award.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by situating the costs determination within the procedural history. It emphasised that the litigation had concluded on liability and damages, and that the present application was confined to costs incurred at various stages of the proceedings. This framing mattered because costs are not assessed in a vacuum; they depend on what the parties ultimately achieved at trial and on appeal. The court therefore summarised the outcomes of the first and second tranches and the respective appellate decisions, focusing on the issues relevant to costs.
On the general principle, the court reiterated that costs generally follow the event. However, it also recognised that there are circumstances where departure from that principle may be justified. The analysis thus required the court to identify the “event” that should govern costs in a bifurcated trial: not every intermediate finding is decisive, and partial success on discrete issues may not translate into overall success for costs purposes when the litigation’s central outcome is otherwise determined.
For the first tranche, the court held that Crescendas was the successful party for both the liability and the damages phases. In reaching that conclusion, it rejected JPW’s submission that JPW was the successful party for the first tranche. The court’s approach was to look beyond isolated wins and to consider the overall effect of the liability judgments and appellate outcomes. In particular, the appellate corrections did not undermine Crescendas’ substantive success on the key liability question: responsibility for delay and the resulting liability for general damages for the delay days attributable to JPW.
The court then addressed quantum. For the first tranche, it determined the appropriate costs to award Crescendas, reflecting the work done in establishing liability and the extent to which Crescendas prevailed on the issues that mattered most. For the second tranche, where the parties agreed entitlement but not amount, the court engaged in a more granular assessment. It considered the legal costs which Crescendas was entitled to for the second tranche and then separately addressed disbursements.
In relation to disbursements, the court broke down the recoverable items. It addressed general disbursements and then turned to expert fees. The judgment indicates that the court considered multiple expert-related components, including expert fees for named experts and joint expert arrangements. The court also treated certain expert fees as distinct categories, rather than lumping them together, which reflects a careful approach to ensuring that only appropriate and necessary disbursements are recovered. This is particularly important in Singapore practice where costs are meant to be compensatory but not a windfall, and where expert evidence must be justified as relevant to the issues actually determined.
Finally, the court dealt with costs orders for various interlocutory applications. While the substantive merits were already resolved, interlocutory costs can still be contested. The court’s reasoning suggests that it applied the same underlying logic: identify which party succeeded on the interlocutory issues and whether any departure from the general rule was warranted. This ensured coherence across the entire costs landscape of the case.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that Crescendas was entitled to costs for both the first tranche and the second tranche of the trial. This included costs relating to liability and to the assessment of damages. The practical effect is that JPW, having been found liable for the relevant delay days and having failed to displace Crescendas’ overall success on appeal, was required to bear the costs consequences of the litigation stages that culminated in Crescendas’ substantive recovery.
In addition, the court made specific orders on the quantum of costs and disbursements for the second tranche, including expert-related expenses. The decision therefore provides a concrete costs award framework rather than leaving the parties to further dispute the amount. It also confirms that, in complex multi-stage proceedings, the court will treat appellate outcomes and the central substantive “event” as the anchor for costs entitlement.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters because it illustrates how Singapore courts approach costs in bifurcated and appellate-heavy litigation. Many construction and commercial disputes proceed through multiple phases, with different issues decided at different times. Practitioners often face the question of whether a party that “wins” on some liability sub-issues can still be treated as unsuccessful overall for costs purposes. Here, the court’s conclusion that Crescendas was the successful party for both tranches underscores that costs entitlement is driven by the substantive outcomes that determine liability and the damages entitlement, not merely by isolated findings.
It also demonstrates the court’s willingness to engage with detailed quantum assessments where entitlement is agreed but the amount is contested. The structured treatment of legal costs and disbursements, including expert fees, is particularly valuable for litigators preparing costs submissions. The judgment signals that courts will scrutinise expert-related expenses and will categorise and evaluate them rather than automatically allowing all costs incurred.
From a precedent and practical standpoint, the decision reinforces the general “costs follow the event” principle while recognising that departures may be appropriate in suitable cases. Even though the court did not depart from the general rule in favour of JPW, its discussion provides a roadmap for future costs arguments: parties should focus on what the litigation’s decisive outcomes were, how appellate corrections affect the “event”, and how to justify the reasonableness and necessity of costs and disbursements at each stage.
Legislation Referenced
- First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
- [2019] SGCA 63
- [2019] SGHC 4
- [2020] SGHC 140
- [2021] SGHC 189
- [2023] SGHC 209
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 209 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.