Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 26
- Title: EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide Ltd and others
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Suit No: Suit No 732 of 2016
- Date of Decision: 31 January 2022
- Judgment Reserved: 20 December 2021; Judgment delivered 31 January 2022
- Judge: Vinodh Coomaraswamy J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Surewin Worldwide Ltd; (2) Singfor Life Insurance Co Ltd; (3) EFG Wealth Solutions (Singapore) Ltd
- First Defendant: Surewin Worldwide Ltd was described as defunct and took no part in the action and filed no submissions on costs
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes/Rules Referenced: Order 59 r 6A of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
- Practice Directions: Supreme Court Practice Directions, Appendix G (Costs Guidelines)
- Related Earlier Judgment: EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide [2021] SGHC 227 (“EFG v Surewin”)
- Judgment Length: 16 pages; 4,031 words
- Cases Cited (as provided): [2020] SGHC 140; [2021] SGHC 227; [2022] SGHC 26
Summary
EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide Ltd and others [2022] SGHC 26 is a High Court decision dealing exclusively with costs arising from earlier substantive litigation between the same parties. The court had previously upheld the plaintiff’s security interest in a fund held by the third defendant as trustee for the second defendant. In the present judgment, Vinodh Coomaraswamy J addressed how costs should be quantified and whether the successful party should be deprived of part of its costs due to alleged unnecessary or unreasonable protraction of the proceedings.
The court held that the “event” in the action went against the second defendant and in favour of the plaintiff, so costs should ordinarily follow the event. The judge accepted that costs should be assessed on the standard basis, fixed by the court rather than taxed, and that the case’s complexity justified a departure from the Supreme Court Practice Directions’ Appendix G costs guidelines. However, the court scrutinised the reasonableness and proportionality of the amounts claimed, particularly in light of the amount at stake and the comparative benchmark for similar equity and trusts claims.
On the key dispute, the second defendant sought a reduction of 50% of the plaintiff’s costs under O 59 r 6A of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), arguing that the plaintiff lost on various subsidiary issues even though it succeeded on the three broad issues. The court rejected that approach, emphasising that O 59 r 6A is not engaged merely because a successful party failed on subsidiary issues. The discretion to deprive costs is enlivened only where the successful party has thereby unnecessarily or unreasonably protracted, or added to the costs or complexity of the proceedings. The court therefore awarded the plaintiff the costs it found to be reasonable, subject to the court’s own assessment.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
This costs decision must be read together with the earlier substantive judgment in EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide [2021] SGHC 227. In that earlier case, the plaintiff bank succeeded in establishing its security interest over assets held through a trust structure. The present proceedings did not revisit the merits. Instead, the court focused on how the costs of the action should be allocated and quantified following the outcome.
The litigation involved multiple defendants, with the first defendant described as defunct. The first defendant took no part in the action and made no submissions on costs. The costs dispute therefore primarily concerned the plaintiff and the second defendant, with the third defendant also making submissions. The third defendant’s role in the earlier substantive dispute was tied to its holding of a fund as trustee for the second defendant.
In the costs phase, the plaintiff sought a total of $588,500 for work done up to the filing of its costs schedule, plus additional sums for interlocutory matters and further work after the costs schedule was filed. The plaintiff’s costs schedule had disclosed $555,000 as the figure it considered reasonable for costs reasonably incurred if it succeeded. After the event, the plaintiff increased its claim by adding $13,500 for interlocutory matters where costs were ordered to be “in the cause”, and $20,000 for work done after filing the costs schedule.
A central factual feature relevant to costs was the scale and complexity of the underlying dispute. The amount at stake was approximately US$194 million. The court also noted that the litigation required extensive analysis of foreign legal materials, including Taiwanese law and Jersey law, and raised issues relating to foreign illegality. Further, the proceedings involved questions about whether a Taiwanese arbitration award could give rise to issue estoppel under Singapore law, requiring analysis of the Taiwanese court’s decision upholding the award and a Hong Kong court’s decision declining enforcement. The documentary burden was substantial: an agreed bundle of documents comprised over 60 volumes and more than 35,000 pages.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was the allocation of costs: whether the second defendant, as the party against whom the event went, should bear the plaintiff’s costs. This involved applying the general principle that costs follow the event, but also considering whether any statutory or procedural discretion should be exercised to depart from that principle.
The second issue concerned the basis and method of assessment. The plaintiff and second defendant were broadly aligned that costs should be assessed on the standard basis (not indemnity), and that the court should fix costs rather than require taxation. A further issue was whether the court should depart from the Appendix G costs guidelines due to the case’s complexity and novelty.
The third, and most contested, issue was whether the court should reduce the plaintiff’s costs under O 59 r 6A of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed). The second defendant argued that although the plaintiff succeeded on the three broad issues, it lost on a number of subsidiary issues. The second defendant contended that the plaintiff’s failure on those subsidiary issues should trigger the court’s discretion to deprive the plaintiff of 50% of its costs, on the basis that the plaintiff had unnecessarily or unreasonably protracted the proceedings or added to their costs or complexity.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On allocation, the court began from the premise that the event in the action went against the second defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. That meant the second defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff’s costs. The judge also accepted the parties’ common ground that costs should be assessed on the standard basis and fixed by the court. These points were not merely procedural preferences; they reflected the court’s approach to fairness and predictability in costs outcomes.
Turning to quantum, the judge treated the plaintiff’s costs schedule as the starting point. The plaintiff’s disclosed figure of $555,000 for work done up to filing the schedule was significant because it had been communicated to the second defendant and the court before the event. The judge then examined the reasonableness of that figure by reference to multiple benchmarks. First, he considered the amount at stake (US$194 million). The court explained that the greater the amount at stake, the greater the importance of the dispute and the more time and labour parties can reasonably be expected to expend. The judge also linked this to proportionality: the claimed sum (a little over 0.2% of the amount at stake) was not disproportionate in itself.
However, the court emphasised that proportionality is not a mechanical test. Even if a claim is small relative to the amount at stake, costs can still be unreasonably incurred. The touchstone remained reasonableness. This is an important analytical point for practitioners: proportionality helps frame the inquiry, but it does not replace the need for a detailed assessment of whether the work claimed was reasonably necessary for the conduct of the case.
Second, the judge compared the plaintiff’s claimed costs against a maximum figure that would be recoverable if the case did not warrant departure from Appendix G. The court classified the case as an equity and trusts claim. It also accepted that two days of trial counted by the parties were in fact half days, so the trial was 11 days rather than 12. Using the most complex equity and trusts claim in which the court had declined to depart from Appendix G and which culminated in an 11-day trial, the benchmark costs were $301,000. The plaintiff’s claim was just over 190% of that maximum figure. The judge nonetheless considered the variance reasonable given the complexity and novelty of the issues.
Third, the judge considered the second defendant’s own costs schedule benchmark. The second defendant had set out $700,000 as the quantum it would consider reasonable if it had succeeded. The judge observed that the nature of the litigation meant that both pursuing and defending the claim involved broadly similar time, labour, care, and attention. On that comparison, the plaintiff’s claimed costs appeared reasonable. This comparative approach is often useful in costs disputes: where both sides have effectively “priced” the litigation in their own schedules, the court can test reasonableness against those internal assessments.
The most significant part of the analysis concerned O 59 r 6A. The second defendant’s argument was that the plaintiff lost on subsidiary issues embedded within the three broad issues on which it succeeded. The judge rejected this as a misunderstanding of how O 59 r 6A operates. He held that O 59 r 6A does not entitle the court to divide each broad issue into subsidiary issues and treat each subsidiary failure as an independent “event” for costs purposes. In other words, simply failing on a subsidiary issue is not sufficient to engage the discretion to deprive a successful party of costs.
Instead, O 59 r 6A is engaged only if the successful party “has thereby unnecessarily or unreasonably protracted, or added to the costs or complexity of the proceedings”. The judge’s reasoning reflects a purposive reading of the rule: the discretion is aimed at penalising conduct that increases costs or complexity unnecessarily or unreasonably, not at punishing partial defeats within an overall successful outcome. The court therefore maintained the general principle that costs follow the event, subject to a targeted exception requiring a causal link between the successful party’s conduct and unnecessary protraction or added costs.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the reasoning visible in the excerpt shows the court’s structured approach: (1) identify the event and the general rule; (2) assess whether departure from Appendix G is warranted; (3) quantify reasonableness by reference to amount at stake, comparative benchmarks, and parties’ own schedules; and (4) apply O 59 r 6A only where the statutory threshold is met, not merely because subsidiary issues were lost.
What Was the Outcome?
The court awarded costs to the plaintiff, holding that the second defendant was liable because it lost the action. The judge accepted that the case’s complexity justified a departure from Appendix G, but he still assessed the claimed amounts through the lens of reasonableness and proportionality rather than allowing costs automatically because the plaintiff succeeded.
Crucially, the court declined to reduce the plaintiff’s costs under O 59 r 6A. The judge rejected the second defendant’s attempt to treat failures on subsidiary issues as independent events that would justify depriving the successful party of a portion of its costs. The practical effect was that the plaintiff retained the costs it had claimed (subject to the court’s own assessment of reasonableness), reinforcing that O 59 r 6A is not a general “partial success” penalty mechanism.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for Singapore costs practice because it clarifies the operation of O 59 r 6A in a scenario where a party succeeds overall but loses on subsidiary issues. The court’s approach prevents a common tactical argument in costs disputes: that any loss on a sub-issue should automatically justify a reduction. Instead, the rule requires proof that the successful party’s conduct unnecessarily or unreasonably protracted the proceedings or added to costs or complexity. For litigators, this raises the evidential and analytical burden when seeking a costs deprivation under O 59 r 6A.
More broadly, the judgment demonstrates a disciplined methodology for costs assessment in complex cross-border disputes. The court considered the amount at stake, the proportionality of the claimed figure, comparative benchmarks under Appendix G (including adjustments for trial days), and the parties’ own costs schedules. This multi-factor approach is useful for practitioners preparing costs submissions, because it shows how courts test reasonableness beyond headline proportionality.
Finally, the case underscores that departure from Appendix G is not an “all-or-nothing” proposition. Even where departure is warranted due to complexity and novelty, the extent of departure remains relevant. Practitioners should therefore expect courts to use Appendix G as a reference point and to justify why the claimed costs are reasonable in the particular circumstances, especially where foreign law issues, issue estoppel arguments, and voluminous documentary evidence drive complexity.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), Order 59 rule 6A
- Supreme Court Practice Directions, Appendix G (Costs Guidelines)
Cases Cited
- [2020] SGHC 140
- [2021] SGHC 227
- [2022] SGHC 26
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 26 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.