Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC(I) 20
- Title: DOI v DOJ & 2 Ors
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Originating Application No: Originating Application No 20 of 2024
- Summons No: Summons No 12 of 2025
- Judgment Date: 6 August 2025
- Substantive Judgment Date (for context): 5 May 2025
- Substantive Judgment Citation: DOI v DOJ and others and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15
- Judge: Roger Giles IJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: DOI (Claimant)
- Defendants/Respondents: DOJ (1); DOK (2); DOL (3)
- Proceeding Type: Costs determination following an arbitral award set aside and an interlocutory application
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs (SICC)
- Statutes Referenced: Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (SICC Rules) (notably O 22)
- Cases Cited (in extract): Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96; CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another [2018] 4 SLR 38; BXS v BXT [2019] 5 SLR 48
- Judgment Length: 14 pages, 3,458 words
Summary
This decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) concerns the assessment of costs arising from two related stages in an arbitration-related dispute: (1) a substantive application to set aside an arbitral award, and (2) an interlocutory application in which the defendants sought permission to file a further witness statement and, in substance, to raise additional grounds in opposition to the setting-aside application. The court’s substantive reasons (given on 5 May 2025 in DOI v DOJ and others and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15) are not reproduced in full in the extract provided. However, the costs judgment makes clear that the claimant succeeded in having the award set aside, and that costs were to be determined if not agreed.
In the present costs determination, the court first addressed the costs of Summons No 12 of 2025 (“SUM 12”), which the defendants brought to obtain permission to file a further witness statement in the originating application. Permission was granted, and the defendants accepted that they should pay the claimant’s costs of SUM 12. The court agreed with that approach, but reduced the claimant’s claimed quantum. Applying the SICC’s costs principles, the court held that although the claimant was entitled to recover costs reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount, the claimed professional costs were disproportionate given the nature of the interlocutory work and the advocacy-heavy character of the claimant’s responsive materials. The court therefore reduced the professional costs and made a more limited allowance for disbursements relating to instructing Indian solicitors.
The decision also addresses costs of the substantive proceedings (the setting-aside application). While the extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, it is evident that the court proceeded on the basis that, as the successful party in the originating application, the claimant was entitled to costs, subject to the SICC’s proportionality and reasonableness framework. The practical effect is that the defendants were ordered to pay a quantified sum for SUM 12, and the court’s approach signals how SICC courts will scrutinise interlocutory cost claims even in cases where permission is granted over a party’s opposition.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute arose in the context of an arbitration. The claimant, DOI, brought an originating application (OA 20 of 2024) to set aside an arbitral award. The SICC ultimately granted the claimant’s application and set aside the award in the substantive judgment dated 5 May 2025 (DOI v DOJ and others and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15). The costs of the substantive proceedings were left to be determined if not agreed, which led to the present costs judgment.
Before the substantive determination, the defendants brought an interlocutory application, SUM 12, seeking permission to file a further witness statement in OA 20. The court characterised the substance of SUM 12 as an application to raise additional grounds in opposition to the claimant’s setting-aside application. Permission was granted. Importantly for costs, the defendants accepted that they should pay the claimant’s costs of SUM 12, and the court ordered costs accordingly.
Following the grant of permission in SUM 12, the parties did not agree on the quantum of costs. The claimant sought costs of S$80,065.45 for SUM 12, broken down into S$62,413 for professional costs and S$17,652.45 for disbursements. The disbursements included a substantial component of INR 10,71,000 (approximately S$16,500) as the costs of the claimant’s Indian instructing solicitors. The claimant’s professional costs were said to be incurred by Wong Partnership lawyers, including partners, associates, and a “foreign associate”, with time spent on reviewing the interlocutory materials, drafting and reviewing witness statements and letters, researching legal authorities, preparing bundles, attending the hearing, and corresponding with the Indian instructing solicitors.
The defendants contested the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed costs. Their submissions emphasised that the issues in SUM 12 were relatively straightforward: whether the defendants should be allowed to file additional evidence and whether the additional grounds should be permitted, including whether there was prejudice to the claimant. They also argued that the claimant should not recover costs that were allegedly incurred by unnecessarily complicating or protracting matters, and they suggested that the court could be guided by the Supreme Court’s party-and-party costs guidelines in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The court rejected the premise that Appendix G should drive the SICC’s compensatory costs assessment.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was how the SICC should assess costs for an interlocutory application in a setting-aside context, particularly where permission was granted over the claimant’s opposition and where the defendants accepted liability for costs but disputed quantum. The court had to determine what principles govern the assessment of costs in the SICC and how those principles apply to professional costs and disbursements claimed by a successful party on an interlocutory application.
A second issue concerned the scope of recoverable costs: even where a party is entitled to costs, the court must decide whether the costs were “reasonably incurred” and whether the amount claimed is “reasonable” and proportionate to the significance of the interlocutory step. This required the court to evaluate the claimant’s time and staffing levels (including multiple lawyers and multiple timekeepers) against the nature of the work actually required for SUM 12, including the extent to which the claimant’s responsive materials were evidentially necessary versus advocacy-driven.
A third issue concerned disbursements for instructing foreign solicitors. The court had to decide whether the time and expense incurred by Indian lawyers were necessary, non-duplicative, and genuinely contributing to the work required for SUM 12, particularly where the interlocutory issues were not shown to involve Indian law or to require Indian legal input.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by identifying the governing SICC costs principles. It referred to Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96 (“Senda”), which expounded the approach to costs in SICC proceedings. The SICC’s costs regime is compensatory rather than punitive: the award of costs is intended to compensate the successful party for expenses sensibly incurred. The court must consider whether costs were reasonably incurred and whether the amount is reasonable. The starting point is a subjective inquiry into what costs were in fact incurred by the successful party, supported by evidence and a sufficient breakdown.
Crucially, once the claimant provides adequate information to support that the claimed costs are reasonable, the evidential burden shifts to the unsuccessful party to show that the claimed costs are not reasonable. The court emphasised that it is not enough for the unsuccessful party to make unsubstantiated assertions that costs are disproportionate, exorbitant, or unreasonable. The court also noted that a number of factors may be considered under the SICC Rules, specifically O 22 r 3(2) (as referenced in the extract).
The defendants attempted to narrow the applicability of Senda by arguing that Senda’s principles were framed in the context of the successful party in the application, whereas in SUM 12 permission was granted over the claimant’s opposition. The court rejected this. It held that the entitlement to costs in the interlocutory context turns on success in the costs order: the claimant had obtained the costs order in its favour for SUM 12, and therefore it was entitled to be compensated for expenses sensibly incurred in that application. The court relied on O 22 r 3(1) of the SICC Rules, which provides that the quantum of costs will generally reflect the costs incurred by the party entitled to costs. In other words, “success” for costs purposes was the claimant’s position as the party with the costs order, not the claimant’s stance on the merits of permission.
The court then addressed the defendants’ further submission that, because permission was granted, the claimant should not recover the full costs and disbursements it incurred in resisting SUM 12. The court again rejected the submission as a disguised attempt to reintroduce a “full costs” bar. Permission being granted does not negate the claimant’s entitlement to costs ordered in its favour. However, the court clarified that entitlement is not to “whatever costs it had incurred” regardless of reasonableness. The criteria of proportionality and reasonableness still apply. Thus, the court accepted the claimant’s entitlement in principle, but scrutinised the quantum.
On professional costs, the court accepted that the claimant provided details of the Wong Partnership lawyers, their hourly rates, and the hours spent. The work described included reviewing SUM 12 and the witness statement, drafting and reviewing a letter to the court, drafting and reviewing the claimant’s responsive witness statement, researching legal authorities, preparing bundles, attending the hearing, and corresponding with Indian instructing solicitors. The defendants did not take detailed issue with the breakdown such as hourly rates or hours, but argued that the total amount was disproportionate and unreasonable given the relative simplicity of the interlocutory issues.
The court’s analysis turned on proportionality and the staffing/time profile. It noted that the claimed time involved three partners, two associates, and a “foreign associate”, totalling 81.8 hours. The court observed that, on an eight-hour day assumption, this represented over ten full person-days. While it did not downplay the interlocutory application, it considered that the array of lawyers working for that total time exceeded what was warranted. The court also considered qualitative aspects: the responsive witness statement for SUM 12 was “scarcely evidentiary” and largely an advocacy exercise that should have been left to counsel at the hearing. Further, the claimant’s unsuccessful argument for a “special case” test was characterised as potentially speculative, which justified a reduction in recovered costs.
Because the assessment necessarily involved estimation, the court reduced the professional costs claimed from S$62,413 to S$40,000. The court justified the reduction by reference to proportionality to the significance of SUM 12 in the overall setting-aside application. This reflects a consistent SICC theme: even where costs are incurred, the court will not allow recovery of costs that exceed what is sensibly required for the interlocutory step.
On disbursements, the court accepted that the defendants did not contest certain disbursements such as printing costs, filing and service fees, and transcription costs. The main dispute concerned the S$16,500 disbursement for Indian instructing solicitors. The claimant argued that the Indian lawyers were involved in communications and had prior involvement, and that an allowance should be made for keeping instructing solicitors and the client informed and obtaining instructions. The court found “force” in the defendants’ argument that SUM 12 did not involve questions of Indian law and that it was unnecessary or duplicative for Indian lawyers to expend extensive time reviewing Singapore legal principles.
Accordingly, the court allowed a reduced disbursement of S$3,000. The court’s reasoning illustrates that disbursements are not automatically recoverable merely because they were paid. They must be shown to be reasonably incurred and non-duplicative in the context of the work required for the interlocutory application.
Having determined the costs for SUM 12, the court concluded that the costs payable by the defendants to the claimant were S$43,000. The extract then indicates that the court turned to the costs of the substantive proceedings. While the remainder is truncated, the court’s approach would necessarily follow the same SICC principles: the claimant, as the successful party in OA 20, was entitled to costs, including the costs of SIC/SUM 41/202… (the extract truncates the reference). The court would then assess professional costs and disbursements for the substantive stage with the same emphasis on reasonableness, proportionality, and evidential support.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that the defendants pay the claimant costs of SUM 12 in the sum of S$43,000. This comprised a reduced allowance for professional costs (S$40,000) and a limited allowance for disbursements relating to Indian instructing solicitors (S$3,000), with other disbursements not apparently contested in the extract.
For the substantive proceedings (OA 20), the court proceeded on the basis that the claimant was the successful party and therefore entitled to costs. The extract does not provide the final quantified figure for the substantive costs, but it confirms that the court would determine those costs if not agreed, applying the SICC’s compensatory and proportionality framework.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This costs decision is practically significant for arbitration-related litigation in the SICC because it demonstrates how the court will scrutinise interlocutory cost claims even where the claimant has obtained a costs order. The court’s reasoning clarifies that “success” for costs purposes is tied to the party entitled to costs under the order, not necessarily to whether the party’s substantive opposition to permission succeeded. This helps practitioners anticipate that costs entitlement will not be defeated by the mere fact that permission was granted.
At the same time, the decision underscores that entitlement does not translate into full recovery. The court applied Senda’s compensatory framework and required proportionality and reasonableness. It reduced costs where the staffing and time claimed were excessive relative to the interlocutory significance and where the claimant’s responsive materials were largely advocacy rather than evidentially necessary. For litigators, this is a reminder to calibrate team composition and to ensure that written submissions and witness statements serve a genuine evidential or procedural function.
The decision also provides guidance on disbursements for foreign instructing solicitors. Where the interlocutory issues do not require foreign legal input, the court may treat extensive review by foreign lawyers as unnecessary or duplicative. Practitioners should therefore document how foreign counsel’s work contributes to the specific procedural step, rather than relying on general claims of keeping the client informed or maintaining communication channels.
Legislation Referenced
- Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (SICC Rules), in particular:
- Order 22 (Costs), including O 22 r 3(1) and O 22 r 3(2)
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Appendix G (Guidelines for Party-and-Party Costs Awards) — referenced by the defendants as a suggested guide, but not adopted by the court for SICC costs assessment
Cases Cited
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96
- CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another [2018] 4 SLR 38
- BXS v BXT [2019] 5 SLR 48
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCI 20 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.