GURPREET GILL MAAG & 3 Ors v Ian McKee

Sushant Shukla

Case Details

Citation: [2026] SGHC 40
Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
Decision Date: 20 February 2026
Coram: Choo Han Teck J
Case Number: Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 (Summons No 3351 of 2025)
Hearing Date(s): 15 January 2026
Claimants / Plaintiffs: (1) Gurpreet Gill Maag; (2) Daniel Maag; (3) Unum in infinitum Inc.; (4) Illume Holding Pte Ltd.
Respondent / Defendant: Ian McKee
Counsel for Claimants: Suang Wijaya and Hamza Zafar Malik (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
Counsel for Respondent: Gerard Quek Wen Jiang and Glenn Chua Ze Xuan (PD Legal)
Practice Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs

The decision in [2026] SGHC 40 represents a significant clarification of the threshold required for the award of indemnity costs in the context of unsuccessful interlocutory applications. The dispute arose following the dismissal of HC/SUM 3351/2025 ("SUM 3351"), an application brought by the claimants for a stay of execution of a costs order pending appeal, or alternatively, for a conditional stay. While the substantive application was dismissed by Choo Han Teck J on 23 January 2026, the subsequent determination of costs for that summons became the focal point of a sharp disagreement between the parties regarding the appropriate basis and quantum of recovery.

The defendant sought costs on an indemnity basis, totaling S$18,000 plus disbursements. This request was predicated on the claimants’ refusal to withdraw SUM 3351 despite receiving formal warnings from the defendant’s counsel that the application lacked merit. The defendant argued that the claimants’ persistence in the face of such warnings constituted a high degree of unreasonableness, justifying a departure from the standard basis of costs. Conversely, the claimants proposed a modest "all-in" sum of S$2,000, characterizing the application as straightforward and the defendant’s claim as excessive.

Choo Han Teck J rejected the defendant’s bid for indemnity costs, reaffirming that such awards are exceptional and reserved for conduct exhibiting a high degree of unreasonableness. The court held that merely proceeding with an application after being warned of its lack of merit does not, without more, meet this stringent threshold. In quantifying costs on the standard basis, the court balanced the procedural simplicity of the summons against the substantial volume of documentary evidence—approximately 200 pages of affidavits and submissions—that the defendant was required to review. Ultimately, the court ordered the claimants to pay S$5,000 in costs plus S$286 in disbursements, positioning the award at the lower end of the indicative range provided in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021.

This judgment serves as a cautionary reminder to practitioners that while "warning letters" are a common tactical tool in Singapore litigation, they do not create an automatic entitlement to indemnity costs upon the dismissal of the impugned application. The court maintains a broad discretion under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2021 to ensure that costs remain proportionate to the complexity and effort involved, rather than serving as a punitive measure for unsuccessful but non-abusive litigation conduct.

Timeline of Events

7 November 2025: Choo Han Teck J delivers judgment in the substantive proceedings of Originating Claim No 823 of 2023, dismissing both the claimants' claims and the defendant's counterclaim.
20 November 2025: The court issues a costs order in favour of the defendant following the dismissal of the claims in OC 823.
[Undated]: The claimants file HC/SUM 3351/2025 seeking a stay of execution of the 20 November 2025 costs order pending appeal, or in the alternative, a conditional stay.
15 January 2026: A brief substantive hearing is conducted before Choo Han Teck J regarding the merits of SUM 3351.
23 January 2026: Choo Han Teck J delivers judgment dismissing SUM 3351 in its entirety, leaving the issue of costs for the summons to be determined.
4 February 2026: The court hears further submissions from counsel for the claimants and the defendant specifically regarding the quantification and basis of costs for SUM 3351.
20 February 2026: Choo Han Teck J delivers the final judgment on costs, ordering the claimants to pay S$5,000 plus disbursements.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The proceedings in [2026] SGHC 40 are an interlocutory costs dispute following the conclusion of a substantive trial in Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 ("OC 823"). The primary litigation involved four claimants: Gurpreet Gill Maag, Daniel Maag, Unum in infinitum Inc., and Illume Holding Pte Ltd. These parties brought various claims against the defendant, Ian McKee. The defendant, in turn, pursued a counterclaim. On 7 November 2025, Choo Han Teck J dismissed both the primary claims and the counterclaim. Consequently, on 20 November 2025, the court ordered the claimants to pay costs to the defendant for the substantive action.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, the claimants initiated an appeal. In conjunction with this appeal, they filed Summons No 3351 of 2025 ("SUM 3351"), seeking a stay of execution of the costs order dated 20 November 2025. The claimants’ application was framed in the alternative: they sought either an unconditional stay of execution pending the determination of their appeal or a conditional stay, which included an offer to pay the costs into court to be held pending the appellate outcome. Such applications are a standard procedural mechanism intended to prevent the potential dissipation of funds or other irreparable harm that might occur if a judgment is executed before an appeal is heard.

The defendant resisted SUM 3351. During the lead-up to the hearing, the defendant’s counsel sent correspondence to the claimants’ counsel, asserting that the application for a stay was without merit. In this correspondence, the defendant’s counsel explicitly reserved the right to seek indemnity costs should the claimants persist with the application and subsequently fail. Despite this warning, the claimants proceeded with the summons. The matter came before Choo Han Teck J for a brief hearing on 15 January 2026. On 23 January 2026, the court dismissed SUM 3351 in its entirety, finding no sufficient grounds to grant either the unconditional or conditional stay.

The dismissal of the summons triggered a dispute over the costs of the application itself. The defendant’s counsel argued that the claimants’ conduct in pursuing a meritless application—particularly after being warned—justified an award of costs on the indemnity basis. They sought a quantum of S$18,000, supported by disbursements of S$286. The defendant highlighted the administrative and legal burden imposed by the application, noting that counsel had to review approximately 200 pages of material, comprising affidavits and written submissions filed by the claimants. The defendant contended that the S$18,000 figure was a fair reflection of the work required to respond to the stay application.

The claimants, represented by Suang Wijaya and Hamza Zafar Malik, took a starkly different view. They argued that the application was a routine procedural step and that the hearing on 15 January 2026 had been brief. They submitted that a sum of S$2,000 "all-in" (inclusive of disbursements) was the appropriate amount to be paid to the defendant. The claimants relied on the simplicity of the issues involved in a stay application and argued that the defendant’s request for S$18,000 was grossly disproportionate to the actual complexity of the summons. This set the stage for the court’s analysis of the principles governing indemnity costs and the application of the statutory costs guidelines under the Rules of Court 2021.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The court was tasked with resolving three primary legal issues regarding the costs of SUM 3351:

The Basis of Costs: Whether the claimants' conduct in proceeding with SUM 3351, despite a formal warning from the defendant that the application lacked merit, reached the threshold of "high degree of unreasonableness" required to justify an award of costs on the indemnity basis rather than the standard basis.
The Applicability of Appendix G: To what extent the court should adhere to the indicative costs ranges set out in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 for summonses seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal, and whether the specific circumstances of this case warranted a departure from those ranges.
Quantum and Proportionality: The determination of a fair and proportionate quantum of costs under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2021, taking into account the brevity of the hearing versus the volume of documentary evidence (200 pages) that the defendant's counsel was required to process.

These issues required the court to balance the need to compensate a successful party for their legal expenses against the principle that indemnity costs are an exceptional remedy not to be used lightly to penalize unsuccessful litigants who have not engaged in abusive or highly unreasonable conduct.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The court’s analysis began with a fundamental examination of the distinction between standard and indemnity costs. Choo Han Teck J emphasized that the power to award indemnity costs is a discretionary one, but it is a discretion that must be exercised in accordance with established judicial principles. The court cited the English Court of Appeal decision in Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242 as the authoritative guide for the threshold of indemnity costs.

"Indemnity costs, outside of contract, are exceptional and reserved for cases where a party's conduct exhibits a high degree of unreasonableness" (at [4]).

The judge noted that the "high degree of unreasonableness" standard is a significant hurdle. It requires more than just a losing argument or a failed application. In the context of SUM 3351, the defendant’s primary argument for indemnity costs was the fact that the claimants had been warned. The defendant’s counsel had sent a letter stating that the application was meritless and that indemnity costs would be sought if it were not withdrawn. The court, however, found this logic insufficient. Choo Han Teck J observed that if every party who proceeded with an application after receiving a warning letter was subject to indemnity costs, it would stifle the ability of litigants to test their cases before the court. The judge explicitly stated:

"In my view, proceeding with an application despite a warning from the opposing party about its lack of merit does not constitute such unreasonableness" (at [4]).

The court further reasoned that SUM 3351, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not an abuse of process. It was a standard application for a stay of execution pending appeal. The fact that the court disagreed with the claimants' grounds for the stay did not mean the application was brought in bad faith or with the level of procedural misconduct that typically triggers indemnity costs. Consequently, the court ruled that costs should be assessed on the standard basis.

Moving to the quantification of costs on the standard basis, the court turned to the framework provided by Order 21 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2021 ("ROC 2021"). Under O 21 r 2(2), the court is mandated to consider several factors, including the complexity of the matter and the time and labour expended by counsel. The court also looked to Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021, which provides "suggested ranges" for costs in various types of interlocutory applications. For a summons seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal, Appendix G suggests a range of S$3,000 to S$11,000.

The judge analyzed the competing figures proposed by the parties against this range. The defendant’s request for S$18,000 was found to be excessive. Even if the defendant’s counsel had to review 200 pages of material, the court noted that the hearing on 15 January 2026 was "brief." The judge remarked that while the volume of material is a relevant factor, it must be balanced against the actual complexity of the legal issues and the duration of the oral advocacy required. The S$18,000 figure sat significantly above the ceiling of the Appendix G range, and the court found no exceptional circumstances in this case to justify such a departure.

On the other hand, the claimants’ proposal of S$2,000 "all-in" was deemed too low. The court acknowledged that although the hearing was short, the defendant’s counsel did indeed have to perform the work of reviewing the 200 pages of affidavits and submissions. This labor must be fairly compensated. The claimants' proposed figure fell below the S$3,000 floor of the Appendix G range. The judge noted that the Appendix G ranges, while not binding, provide a useful benchmark for consistency in costs awards across the General Division.

In determining the final figure, Choo Han Teck J adopted a middle-ground approach that reflected the "straightforward" nature of the application while acknowledging the documentary burden. The court concluded that an award at the lower end of the Appendix G range was appropriate. The judge fixed the professional fees at S$5,000. To this, the court added the reasonable disbursements of S$286, which the defendant had claimed and the claimants had not substantively disputed. This resulted in a total award that was significantly less than the defendant's claim but more than double the claimants' offer.

The court also briefly addressed the claimants' reliance on other costs precedents. The judge dismissed these as being of limited utility, noting that costs are "highly fact- and procedure-specific." Every summons involves different volumes of evidence, different levels of counsel seniority, and different degrees of preparation. Therefore, the court’s primary reliance remained on the ROC 2021 factors and the Appendix G guidelines rather than attempting to draw direct comparisons with unrelated cases.

What Was the Outcome?

The High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for indemnity costs and proceeded to fix costs on the standard basis. The final orders of the court were as follows:

The claimants were ordered to pay the defendant costs fixed at S$5,000.
The claimants were further ordered to pay the defendant reasonable disbursements in the sum of S$286.
The total liability of the claimants for the costs of SUM 3351 was therefore S$5,286.

The operative paragraph of the judgment, which encapsulates the court's final disposition, states:

"I order the claimants to pay costs of S$5,000 plus reasonable disbursements of S$286 to the defendant." (at [7])

This outcome represented a significant reduction from the S$18,286 (S$18,000 + S$286) originally sought by the defendant on an indemnity basis. It also rejected the claimants' attempt to cap their liability at a S$2,000 "all-in" figure. By fixing the costs at S$5,000, the court placed the award firmly within the lower half of the S$3,000 to S$11,000 range suggested by Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 for stay-related summonses. The court's decision ensured that the defendant was compensated for the time spent reviewing the 200 pages of material while maintaining proportionality relative to the brevity of the hearing and the straightforward nature of the legal issues involved in the stay application.

Why Does This Case Matter?

The decision in [2026] SGHC 40 is of significant importance to Singapore practitioners for several reasons, primarily concerning the strategic use of costs submissions and the interpretation of the Rules of Court 2021. First and foremost, it clarifies the limits of "warning letters" as a basis for indemnity costs. In many jurisdictions, including Singapore, counsel often send "Calderbank-like" letters or simple warnings to the opposing side, asserting that an application is meritless and reserving the right to seek indemnity costs. This judgment makes it clear that such a reservation of rights does not, by itself, satisfy the "high degree of unreasonableness" threshold. This protects the fundamental right of litigants to bring applications that they believe have a colorable basis, even if the court ultimately finds them to be without merit.

Secondly, the case reinforces the role of Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021 as a vital "anchor" for costs quantification. While the court explicitly noted that these guidelines are not binding, the judgment demonstrates that they are the starting point for any analysis. Practitioners who seek costs significantly outside the Appendix G ranges must be prepared to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. In this case, the defendant’s request for S$18,000—which was S$7,000 above the suggested ceiling—was rejected because the procedural simplicity of the summons did not justify such a departure, notwithstanding the volume of documents involved.

Thirdly, the judgment provides a practical example of how the court balances different factors under Order 21 Rule 2 of the ROC 2021. The court’s willingness to award S$5,000 (above the S$3,000 floor) specifically because of the 200 pages of material reviewed shows that "documentary burden" is a tangible factor that can move the needle within the Appendix G range. However, the brevity of the hearing acts as a counterweight, preventing the award from climbing toward the ceiling of the range. This provides a useful template for counsel when preparing costs schedules or submissions: they must quantify not just the time spent in court, but the specific volume of material they were forced to process.

Finally, the case contributes to the doctrinal lineage of Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited in Singapore law. By adopting the "high degree of unreasonableness" test in the context of a stay application, the High Court has signaled a consistent approach to indemnity costs across different types of interlocutory and substantive proceedings. This consistency is crucial for providing predictability to litigants and their insurers when assessing the financial risks of pursuing or defending applications. For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: indemnity costs remain an "exceptional" remedy, and the threshold for "unreasonableness" remains high, requiring more than just a failure to heed a warning from the opposing side.

Practice Pointers

Manage Expectations on Warning Letters: Do not advise clients that a "warning letter" or a "reservation of rights" will automatically lead to indemnity costs. The court requires a "high degree of unreasonableness" that goes beyond merely ignoring an opponent's view of the merits.
Anchor Submissions in Appendix G: When proposing a costs figure for an interlocutory summons, always start with the relevant range in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. If seeking a sum outside this range, clearly articulate the "exceptional" factors (e.g., extreme complexity or unprecedented documentary volume) that justify the departure.
Quantify the Documentary Burden: If a straightforward summons involves a large volume of evidence (e.g., the 200 pages in this case), highlight this specifically in costs submissions. The court may use this to justify an award above the minimum floor of the Appendix G range.
Brevity of Hearing as a Limiting Factor: Be aware that a brief hearing (e.g., the 15 January 2026 hearing) will often act as a "cap" on costs, even if the preparatory work was extensive. The court views the duration of oral advocacy as a key indicator of complexity.
Standard Basis is the Default: Assume that costs will be awarded on the standard basis unless there is clear evidence of abuse of process, bad faith, or procedural misconduct. The "exceptional" nature of indemnity costs is a high bar that is rarely met in routine stay applications.
Disbursements Must Be Reasonable: Always ensure that disbursements (like the S$286 in this case) are clearly itemized and reasonable, as the court will typically award these even if the professional fees are significantly reduced.