Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC(I) 2
- Title: DNO v DNP
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court
- Originating Application No: Originating Application No 4 of 2025 (OA 4)
- Originating Application No (Transferred): HC/OA 1092/2024 (OA 1092)
- Date of Judgment: 12 February 2026
- Date Judgment Reserved: 8 January 2026
- Judge: Anthony James Besanko IJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: DNO
- Defendant/Respondent: DNP
- Procedural Posture: Costs decision following determination of an application to set aside an arbitral award
- Underlying Arbitration Outcome (context): DNP succeeded in arbitration; awarded damages of US$33,009.53 and INR22,432,076.68 plus simple interest; counterclaim dismissed
- Substantive Application in OA 4: DNO sought to set aside the arbitral award on grounds of (a) breach of natural justice and (b) conflict with Singapore public policy
- Prior Merits Decision: DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 24 (“DNO v DNP (Merits)”)—standing upheld; substantive set-aside application dismissed
- Key Costs Applications Mentioned: SIC/SUM 20/2025 (security for costs—agreement reached; not pursued) and SIC/SUM 25/2025 (leave to file further affidavit on standing—granted)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Not specified in the provided extract
- Cases Cited: Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96; DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 24; DNO v DNP (Leave to File Further Affidavit) [2025] 4 SLR 362 (as referenced in extract)
- Judgment Length: 37 pages, 9,432 words
Summary
This decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) concerns the assessment of costs following the transfer of an originating application from the General Division of the High Court to the SICC. The underlying dispute arose from an arbitration in which DNP (the claimant in the arbitration) succeeded and obtained damages plus simple interest, while the partnership respondent’s counterclaim was dismissed. DNO subsequently sought to set aside the arbitral award in OA 4, alleging breach of natural justice and conflict with Singapore public policy. The SICC had earlier dismissed DNO’s substantive challenge and, importantly for costs, had held that DNO had standing to bring the set-aside application.
In the present costs judgment, DNP was the successful party in OA 4 and sought costs for two distinct periods: “Pre-Transfer Costs” (while the matter was in the General Division) and “Post-Transfer Costs” (after transfer to the SICC). The court applied different procedural cost frameworks for each period, using the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) for the pre-transfer stage and the SICC Rules 2021 for the post-transfer stage. The court also addressed whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis, whether the quantum claimed was excessive, and whether DNO could obtain a set-off for costs relating to the standing issue.
The court ultimately rejected DNO’s attempt to reduce or offset DNP’s costs by reference to the standing-related costs and also rejected DNO’s broader arguments that DNP’s costs were excessive. The decision provides practical guidance on how SICC courts approach costs schedules, proportionality and reasonableness, and the allocation of costs across transferred proceedings.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The factual background begins with an arbitration. DNP was the claimant in that arbitration, and the respondent was a partnership firm (“Partnership”). DNP succeeded in the arbitration and was awarded damages of US$33,009.53 and INR22,076,68 plus simple interest. The Partnership’s counterclaim was dismissed. Dissatisfied, the party now known as DNO brought an application to set aside the arbitral award in Singapore.
In OA 4, DNO sought to set aside the award on two principal grounds: first, that there had been a breach of natural justice in connection with the making of the award; and second, that the award conflicted with the public policy of Singapore. DNP opposed the application and raised multiple arguments, including an objection that DNO lacked standing to challenge the award.
Before the costs decision, the SICC had already determined the merits. In DNO v DNP (Merits), the court held that the legal personality of the Partnership had merged into and been assumed by DNO, and therefore DNO had standing to challenge the award. In the same merits judgment, the SICC dismissed DNO’s substantive application to set aside the award. Those findings were crucial because, as the successful party in OA 4, DNP became entitled to costs.
Procedurally, OA 4 originated in the General Division of the High Court as HC/OA 1092/2024 on 21 October 2024. The matter was later transferred to the SICC on 3 March 2025 and converted into OA 4. OA 4 was heard on 19 May 2025, and the SICC delivered its merits judgment on 18 September 2025. After that, DNP applied for costs for both the pre-transfer and post-transfer periods. The present judgment addresses that costs application, including how the court should assess and quantify costs across the two procedural regimes.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was the correct legal framework for assessing costs for the two periods. Because the proceedings were transferred from the General Division to the SICC, the court had to determine whether the same costs rules applied throughout or whether different rules governed each stage. The court’s approach required it to identify the relevant provisions for “Pre-Transfer Costs” under ROC 2021 and for “Post-Transfer Costs” under the SICC Rules 2021.
The second issue concerned the basis for assessment: whether DNP should receive costs on an indemnity basis or on the standard basis. DNP argued for indemnity costs, contending that DNO’s challenge was “no more than an attack on the merits of the Award” and that the costs claimed were not unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred. DNO, by contrast, argued that indemnity costs were not appropriate because there was no finding of improper purpose or improper conduct.
The third issue related to quantum, proportionality, and reasonableness. DNP claimed substantial sums for both pre- and post-transfer work, including the involvement of multiple counsel. DNO argued that the costs were excessive, particularly given that the issues were not particularly complex and that DNP did not need three counsel. DNO also sought to recover its own costs relating to the standing issue and to set those costs off against DNP’s costs.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the procedural context for costs. When OA 4 was transferred to the SICC, there was no order made regarding costs or assessment of costs. Accordingly, the court held that Pre-Transfer Costs should be assessed by reference to ROC 2021, while Post-Transfer Costs should be assessed by reference to the SICC Rules 2021. The court relied on the principle articulated in Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96, where the court had explained how costs rules apply when proceedings move between procedural regimes.
For Pre-Transfer Costs, the court identified the relevant ROC 2021 provisions, including O 21 r 22(1), which establishes the default that costs are assessed on a standard basis unless it appears appropriate to order indemnity costs. The court also referenced Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (“Appendix G”), which provides guidance on reasonable ranges of costs. DNO’s argument that DNP’s costs were excessive was anchored in Appendix G and in the fact that much of the work was done after transfer to the SICC, suggesting that the pre-transfer component should not be inflated.
In assessing DNP’s Pre-Transfer Costs, the court considered the structure of DNP’s costs claim. DNP claimed Pre-Transfer Costs of $14,000 plus GST of $1,260 and disbursements of $4,381.35, and it also claimed interest. DNP explained that the pre-transfer work fell into two categories: (a) work connected with DNP’s affidavit supporting OA 4 (S/N 1), and (b) work connected with DNP’s affidavit in response (S/N 2). The court noted that DNO did not dispute DNP’s entitlement to costs, but disputed the amount claimed.
On the indemnity basis argument, the court accepted that DNP’s submission was that indemnity costs were appropriate because DNO’s challenge was essentially an attack on the merits and because the costs were not shown to be unreasonable. However, DNO countered that indemnity costs require more than a failed challenge; it argued that there was no finding that DNO acted for an improper purpose or conducted the proceedings improperly. The court’s reasoning (as reflected in the extract) indicates a careful approach: indemnity costs are not automatic and are tied to the court’s assessment of appropriateness under the ROC framework, rather than merely to the outcome of the application.
For Post-Transfer Costs, the court applied the SICC Rules 2021 approach. DNP argued that the starting point under the SICC Rules is that the successful party should recover its costs actually incurred, subject to proportionality and reasonableness. DNP claimed $77,400 plus GST of $6,966 and disbursements of $2,116.02, again with interest. The court broke down the post-transfer work into three categories: (a) work connected with DNO’s further affidavit and DNP’s submissions, involving three counsel and 60 hours (S/N 3); (b) work connected with DNP’s submissions and preparation for the hearing, again involving three counsel and 52 hours (S/N 4); and (c) miscellaneous costs including attendance at case conferences and hearings and preparation of costs submissions, involving 44 hours (S/N 5–9).
DNO’s response focused on proportionality and staffing. It argued that DNP did not need three counsel and that the issues were not particularly complex. DNO also sought additional costs for two interlocutory applications: SUM 20 (security for costs) and SUM 25 (leave to file a further affidavit on standing). SUM 20 was not pursued after the parties agreed on the quantum of security, while SUM 25 was granted. DNO submitted that costs for SUM 25 should be fixed at $10,000 plus reasonable disbursements, and it suggested that the proper amount of post-transfer costs after set-off should be $45,000 plus reasonable disbursements, though it did not explain the calculation.
Importantly, the court rejected DNO’s claim for costs and disbursements relating to the issue of standing. The extract indicates that the court had already rejected DNO’s set-off request for standing costs for reasons set out earlier in the judgment (at [29]) and that additional reasons were provided for rejecting costs insofar as they related to SUM 25 (at [61]–[66]). The court therefore declined to engage in a detailed assessment of DNO’s standing-related costs schedule beyond noting that DNO’s claim was not accepted and that it was not necessary to consider the details of DNO’s costs schedule for that issue.
Finally, the court addressed the quality of the costs material. It observed a calculation error in DNP’s disbursements schedule for the post-transfer stage: the disbursements claimed in S/N 5–13 should have added up to $2,116.02 rather than $2,107.02. The court treated this as a straightforward calculation error and did not require an amended disbursements schedule, reflecting a pragmatic approach to minor arithmetical issues where the overall reasonableness and incurred nature of the disbursements were not disputed.
What Was the Outcome?
The court’s outcome was a costs determination in favour of DNP as the successful party in OA 4. It confirmed the correct assessment framework for each period: ROC 2021 for Pre-Transfer Costs and SICC Rules 2021 for Post-Transfer Costs, applying the default standard basis for costs unless indemnity costs were appropriate. It also rejected DNO’s attempt to reduce DNP’s costs by set-off of standing-related costs and rejected DNO’s related arguments concerning costs for SUM 25.
Practically, the decision means that DNP retained entitlement to recover its costs for both the pre-transfer and post-transfer stages, subject to the court’s assessment of reasonableness and proportionality. The court’s approach also clarifies that minor errors in a costs schedule will not necessarily derail recovery, but that parties must still provide coherent and defensible bases for any claimed indemnity costs, staffing decisions (such as using three counsel), and any set-off claims.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it addresses costs in a transferred proceeding—an increasingly common procedural scenario in Singapore commercial litigation. By explicitly applying ROC 2021 to the pre-transfer period and SICC Rules 2021 to the post-transfer period, the court provides a clear methodology for lawyers preparing costs submissions where cases move between procedural tracks.
Second, the case reinforces the structured approach to indemnity costs. While a failed set-aside application may justify scrutiny of costs, indemnity costs are not a mere consequence of losing. The court’s analysis underscores that indemnity costs depend on whether it appears appropriate in the circumstances, and that allegations of improper purpose or improper conduct matter. This is particularly relevant in arbitration-related challenges, where parties often frame their positions as principled legal disputes rather than misconduct.
Third, the decision offers practical lessons on costs documentation and advocacy. The court’s treatment of the disbursements calculation error shows that courts may correct or tolerate minor arithmetical issues where the underlying disbursements are not disputed. Conversely, DNO’s failure to provide a clear basis for its proposed set-off and its lack of specificity on how it calculated the “proper amount” for post-transfer costs were not persuasive. For counsel, the case highlights the importance of (i) aligning costs claims to the issues actually litigated, (ii) providing coherent calculations, and (iii) addressing proportionality concerns directly—especially where multiple counsel are engaged.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), including O 21 r 22 and O 21 rr 2(2), 22(1)–22(3) (as referenced in the extract)
- Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (SICC Rules 2021) (as referenced in the extract)
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Appendix G (as referenced in the extract)
Cases Cited
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96
- DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 24 (“DNO v DNP (Merits)”)
- DNO v DNP (Leave to File Further Affidavit) [2025] 4 SLR 362 (as referenced in the extract)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHCI 2 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.