Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 40
- Title: Gurpreet Gill Maag & 3 Ors v Ian McKee
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date: 20 February 2026
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Originating Claim No: 823 of 2023
- Summons No: 3351 of 2025
- Procedural Posture: Costs submissions following dismissal of an application for a stay of execution of a costs order pending appeal (and an alternative conditional stay)
- Hearing Dates Noted in Judgment: Judgment reserved; parties heard on 4 February 2026; judgment delivered on 20 February 2026
- Parties: Claimants/Applicants: (1) Gurpreet Gill Maag, (2) Daniel Maag, (3) Unum in infinitum Inc., (4) Illume Holding Pte Ltd; Defendant/Respondent: Ian McKee
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Key Substantive Context (Background): Underlying OC 823 involved claims for inducement of breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, malicious falsehood, slander and libel; defendant counterclaimed for defamation
- Prior Decision in Underlying Claim: On 7 November 2025, the court dismissed both claims and counterclaim and ordered costs in favour of the defendant (with costs order dated 20 November 2025)
- Prior Decision on SUM 3351: On 23 January 2026, the court dismissed SUM 3351 in its entirety
- Costs Sought by Defendant: S$18,000 on an indemnity basis (plus disbursements of S$286)
- Costs Sought by Claimants: S$2,000 all-in
- Final Costs Order: S$5,000 costs plus reasonable disbursements of S$286 on the standard basis
- Representatives: For the claimants: Suang Wijaya and Hamza Zafar Malik (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP); For the defendant: Gerard Quek Wen Jiang and Glenn Chua Ze Xuan (PD Legal)
Summary
This High Court decision concerns costs arising from a failed application for a stay of execution of a costs order pending appeal. The claimants, having lost their substantive claims and the defendant having obtained costs in OC 823, applied in HC/SUM 3351/2025 to stay the execution of the costs order while their appeal was pending. They also sought an alternative conditional stay, including an offer to pay costs into court. The court dismissed SUM 3351 in full on 23 January 2026 and then heard submissions on the appropriate costs for that summons.
In determining costs, the court rejected the defendant’s request for indemnity costs. The judge emphasised that indemnity costs are exceptional and generally reserved for cases involving a high degree of unreasonableness. Proceeding with an application after being warned that it lacked merit was not, by itself, the kind of conduct that warrants indemnity costs. The court instead awarded costs on the standard basis, guided by the factors in O 21 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) and by the suggested ranges in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 for stay-related summonses.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute in OC 823 concerned serious allegations and counter-allegations. The claimants pursued claims including inducement of breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, malicious falsehood, slander and libel. The defendant counterclaimed for defamation. After hearing the parties, the High Court dismissed both the claimants’ claims and the defendant’s counterclaim, and ordered costs in favour of the defendant. The costs order was made on 20 November 2025.
Following the costs order, the claimants sought to prevent immediate execution while they pursued an appeal. They filed HC/SUM 3351/2025, asking for a stay of execution of the costs order pending the determination of their appeal. In the alternative, they sought a conditional stay, specifically by paying the costs into court. The procedural purpose of such applications is to balance the appellant’s interest in not being prejudiced by execution against the respondent’s interest in securing the fruits of a costs order.
The court heard SUM 3351 and delivered its decision on 23 January 2026, dismissing the application in its entirety. The judgment on costs for SUM 3351 followed thereafter. At that stage, the substantive merits of the stay application were no longer in issue; rather, the focus shifted to how costs should be quantified and on what basis (standard or indemnity).
For the costs hearing, the defendant’s counsel sought S$18,000 on an indemnity basis, plus disbursements of S$286. The defendant justified this request by pointing to correspondence: counsel had written to the claimants’ counsel advising that SUM 3351 lacked merit, while reserving the defendant’s right to seek indemnity costs if the application was dismissed. The defendant also explained the practical burden of responding to the application, including reviewing approximately 200 pages of affidavits and written submissions.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was whether the court should award indemnity costs for SUM 3351. Indemnity costs are a more punitive costs regime than standard costs, typically resulting in the losing party paying a higher proportion of the other side’s reasonable costs. The question was whether the claimants’ conduct in pursuing the stay application—despite being warned that it lacked merit—rose to the level of “high degree of unreasonableness” required for indemnity costs.
A second issue concerned the appropriate quantum of costs on the standard basis. Even if indemnity costs were not warranted, the court still had to decide what amount was fair and proportionate having regard to the time and labour expended, the complexity of the matter, and the volume of materials reviewed. This required the court to apply the costs principles in O 21 r 2 of the ROC 2021 and to consider relevant guidance in the Supreme Court Directions.
Finally, the court had to decide whether to follow or depart from the suggested cost ranges in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 for summonses seeking stays of proceedings pending appeal. Although those guidelines are not binding, they provide a structured reference point to promote consistency and predictability in costs awards.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The judge began by framing the indemnity costs question through established principle. Indemnity costs, outside contractual arrangements, are exceptional. They are generally reserved for situations where a party’s conduct demonstrates a high degree of unreasonableness. The court relied on the articulation of this principle by Simon Brown LJ in Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242 at 246, which the judge treated as a relevant authority for the threshold for indemnity costs.
Applying that threshold, the court held that proceeding with an application after receiving a warning from the opposing party about lack of merit did not, without more, amount to the requisite unreasonableness. The judge observed that the application was not wholly devoid of substance and did not constitute an abuse of process. In other words, the court treated the claimants’ decision to pursue SUM 3351 as within the range of legitimate litigation conduct, even if the application ultimately failed.
The court also addressed the defendant’s argument based on reservation of rights. The defendant had indicated it would seek indemnity costs if SUM 3351 was dismissed. However, the judge emphasised that a reservation of rights, absent a contractual agreement, does not automatically entitle a party to indemnity costs. Costs remain a matter of judicial discretion under O 21 r 2(1) of the ROC 2021. This is an important practical point: parties cannot “contract around” the costs regime simply by correspondence; the court must still be satisfied that indemnity costs are justified by the relevant conduct and circumstances.
Having decided that indemnity costs were not warranted, the court turned to the standard basis quantum. Under O 21 r 2(2) of the ROC 2021, the court must have regard to factors including complexity and the time and labour expended. The judge accepted that SUM 3351 was relatively straightforward: it involved only one round of affidavits and written submissions, and the hearing was brief (15 January 2026). This supported the claimants’ submission that the costs should be modest rather than at the high end of any suggested range.
At the same time, the judge accounted for the practical burden on the defendant. The defendant’s counsel had to review a large volume of materials—about 200 pages of affidavits and written submissions. This factor justified an award above the claimants’ proposed S$2,000 all-in figure. The court thus balanced procedural simplicity against the documentary workload.
To anchor the quantum, the judge referred to Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. That appendix provides indicative ranges for costs for summonses seeking stays of proceedings pending appeal, typically ranging from S$3,000 to S$11,000 (excluding disbursements). The defendant’s request of S$18,000 was therefore viewed as excessive when compared with the suggested range. Conversely, the claimants’ proposal of S$2,000 was below the suggested range. The judge noted that the guidelines are not binding and the court may depart where circumstances warrant, but found no compelling reason to do so.
In assessing precedents cited by the claimants, the judge placed limited weight on them. The court explained that costs decisions are highly fact- and procedure-specific: different cases involve different levels of effort, time expenditure, and volumes of submissions and affidavits. Accordingly, the court treated the determination as largely discretionary and anchored in the specific circumstances of SUM 3351.
Ultimately, the judge concluded that because SUM 3351 was relatively straightforward, the appropriate award should fall within the lower end of the Appendix G range. However, the court also had to reflect the volume of materials requiring review. This led to a middle-ground figure: S$5,000 in costs plus reasonable disbursements of S$286.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the defendant’s request for indemnity costs and awarded costs on the standard basis. Specifically, the claimants were ordered to pay the defendant S$5,000 in costs, plus reasonable disbursements of S$286.
Practically, the decision reduces the financial impact of SUM 3351 on the claimants compared to the defendant’s indemnity-costs claim of S$18,000, while still recognising that the defendant incurred meaningful costs in reviewing and responding to extensive affidavit and written material.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is a useful reference point for practitioners dealing with costs after unsuccessful interlocutory applications, particularly applications for stays pending appeal. It clarifies that indemnity costs are not triggered merely because a party was warned that an application lacked merit. The court reaffirmed that indemnity costs require a higher threshold of unreasonableness and are exceptional in nature.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the judgment provides guidance on how courts may treat “reservation of rights” correspondence. Even where a respondent signals an intention to seek indemnity costs if an application fails, the court will still independently assess whether the conduct meets the indemnity-costs threshold. This reduces the risk that parties will be automatically exposed to indemnity costs solely due to prior correspondence.
For costs quantification, the decision demonstrates how Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 can be used as a practical benchmark. While not binding, the suggested ranges help structure submissions and promote consistency. The court’s approach also shows that documentary volume can justify costs above the low end of the range even where the application is procedurally straightforward.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), O 21 r 2(1) and O 21 r 2(2)
- Supreme Court Directions 2021, Appendix G
Cases Cited
- Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 40 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.