Gurpreet Gill Maag and others v McKee, Ian [2026] SGHC 40

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: Gurpreet Gill Maag; Daniel Maag; Unum in infinitum Inc.; Illume Holding Pte Ltd.
• Respondent / Defendant: Ian McKee
• Counsel for Claimants: Suang Wijaya, Hamza Zafar Malik (Eugene Thuraisingam LLP)
• Counsel for Respondent: Gerard Quek Wen Jiang, Glenn Chua Ze Xuan (PD Legal)
• Practice Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs

Summary

The decision in Gurpreet Gill Maag and others v McKee, Ian [2026] SGHC 40 serves as a definitive clarification on the high threshold required for an award of indemnity costs within the Singapore litigation landscape, particularly in the context of unsuccessful interlocutory applications. The dispute arose following the dismissal of a stay of execution application (SUM 3351/2025) brought by the claimants after their primary claims in Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 were dismissed. The core of the legal contention centered on whether the claimants’ decision to proceed with the stay application, despite being warned by the defendant of its purported lack of merit, justified a departure from the standard basis of costs assessment.

Choo Han Teck J, presiding over the General Division of the High Court, dismissed the defendant’s prayer for indemnity costs, reaffirming the principle that such costs are "exceptional" and reserved for conduct exhibiting a "high degree of unreasonableness." The court’s analysis provides a critical look at the interaction between party conduct and the discretionary power of the court under the Rules of Court 2021. By rejecting the notion that a mere warning from an opposing party regarding the merits of a case is sufficient to trigger indemnity costs, the judgment protects the right of litigants to seek judicial determination without the looming threat of punitive costs, provided their conduct does not descend into an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the judgment offers a practical application of the Supreme Court Directions 2021, specifically Appendix G, which provides guidelines for costs in various interlocutory matters. The court navigated the significant disparity between the defendant’s request for S$18,000 and the claimants’ proposal of S$2,000, ultimately landing on a figure of S$5,000 plus disbursements. This result underscores the court’s commitment to proportionality and its willingness to exercise discretion to ensure that costs awards reflect the actual complexity and volume of the work performed, rather than merely following the upper limits of suggested ranges or the aggressive demands of a prevailing party.

Ultimately, the case stands as a reminder to practitioners that while the court has broad discretion, that discretion is anchored in established doctrinal tests. The decision reinforces the standard basis as the default for costs assessment and emphasizes that the "exceptional" nature of indemnity costs remains a robust barrier against the escalation of costs in standard commercial and civil litigation. It provides a clear signal that the Singapore courts will not easily be swayed by "warning letters" or "reservation of rights" to grant indemnity costs unless the conduct in question is truly egregious.

Timeline of Events

1. 2023: The claimants, Gurpreet Gill Maag, Daniel Maag, Unum in infinitum Inc., and Illume Holding Pte Ltd., commence Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 against the defendant, Ian McKee, alleging various tortious and contractual breaches.
2. 7 November 2025: Choo Han Teck J delivers judgment in the substantive trial of OC 823/2023, dismissing all of the claimants' claims and the defendant's counterclaim.
3. 20 November 2025: The court issues a costs order in favor of the defendant following the dismissal of the primary claims.
4. Late 2025: The claimants file Summons No 3351 of 2025 (SUM 3351), seeking a stay of execution of the costs order pending the determination of their appeal against the judgment in OC 823. Alternatively, they seek a stay conditional upon paying the costs into court.
5. 15 January 2026: A brief hearing is conducted regarding the merits of the stay application in SUM 3351.
6. 23 January 2026: Choo Han Teck J delivers judgment dismissing SUM 3351 in its entirety, finding no sufficient grounds for a stay of execution.
7. 4 February 2026: The parties submit their respective positions and arguments regarding the appropriate quantum and basis of costs for the unsuccessful SUM 3351 application.
8. 20 February 2026: The court delivers the present judgment ([2026] SGHC 40), ordering the claimants to pay costs of S$5,000 plus disbursements to the defendant on a standard basis.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The litigation originated from a complex web of allegations involving four claimants: Gurpreet Gill Maag, Daniel Maag, Unum in infinitum Inc., and Illume Holding Pte Ltd. These parties initiated Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 against Ian McKee. The claimants’ case was built upon a variety of legal theories, including the inducement of breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, and multiple forms of defamation, specifically malicious falsehood, slander, and libel. The defendant, Ian McKee, did not merely defend the action but also brought a counterclaim for defamation against the claimants. This set the stage for a multi-faceted legal battle involving significant factual disputes and legal arguments regarding the limits of commercial conduct and the protection of reputation.

On 7 November 2025, the court reached a definitive conclusion on the merits of the primary dispute. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the claimants' claims in their entirety and similarly dismissed the defendant's counterclaim. Following this dismissal, the court addressed the issue of costs for the main action on 20 November 2025, ordering that the claimants pay costs to the defendant. This costs order became the catalyst for the subsequent interlocutory skirmish. The claimants, dissatisfied with the trial outcome, indicated their intention to appeal and subsequently filed Summons No 3351 of 2025. In this summons, the claimants sought a stay of execution of the costs order pending the outcome of their appeal. They proposed an alternative where the stay would be granted on the condition that the costs were paid into court, thereby securing the funds while preventing immediate payout to the defendant.

The defendant resisted the stay application vigorously. During the lead-up to the hearing of SUM 3351, the defendant’s legal team issued warnings to the claimants’ counsel, asserting that the application for a stay was devoid of merit and that they would seek indemnity costs if the claimants persisted. Despite these warnings, the claimants proceeded to a hearing on 15 January 2026. On 23 January 2026, the court dismissed SUM 3351, finding that the claimants had not met the requisite legal standards for a stay of execution. The dismissal of the stay application left only the question of the costs of that specific application to be determined.

The factual matrix for the costs determination involved a review of the work done for the summons. The application was relatively straightforward in procedural terms, involving one round of affidavits and written submissions. However, the defendant argued that the volume of material and the claimants' "unreasonable" persistence in the face of warnings justified a high costs award. The defendant sought S$18,000 on an indemnity basis, plus disbursements of S$286. In contrast, the claimants argued for a significantly lower "all-in" sum of S$2,000, citing various precedents where lower costs were awarded for similar applications. This massive gap in the parties' valuations of the legal work—S$18,000 versus S$2,000—required the court to perform a detailed assessment of the reasonableness of the work done and the appropriate application of the Supreme Court's costs guidelines.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate basis and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the stay application in SUM 3351. This required the court to address three specific sub-issues:

• The Threshold for Indemnity Costs: The court had to determine whether the claimants' conduct in proceeding with an unsuccessful stay application, despite receiving a warning from the defendant about its lack of merit, constituted "unreasonableness" of such a high degree as to justify an award of indemnity costs. This involved an interpretation of the "exceptional" nature of indemnity costs as established in Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited.
• The Application of Appendix G Guidelines: The court was required to apply the costs guidelines set out in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. The issue was where within the suggested range of S$3,000 to S$11,000 for a stay of proceedings pending appeal the present case should fall, and whether there were grounds to depart from this range.
• The Weight of Precedents versus Judicial Discretion: The court had to decide how much weight to give to the various case precedents cited by the claimants, which suggested lower costs awards in other stay applications. This involved a consideration of whether costs determinations are fact-specific exercises of discretion or if they should be strictly bound by the outcomes of previous, seemingly similar, summonses.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The court’s analysis began with a fundamental restatement of the law governing indemnity costs. Choo Han Teck J emphasized that indemnity costs are not the default and are not to be awarded lightly. Relying on the English Court of Appeal decision in Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242, the court noted that indemnity costs, outside of a contractual entitlement, are "exceptional and reserved for cases where a party's conduct exhibits a high degree of unreasonableness" (at [4]).

The court specifically addressed the defendant's argument that the claimants' persistence in the face of a warning letter justified indemnity costs. The defendant’s counsel had argued that because they had warned the claimants that the stay application was meritless, the claimants’ decision to proceed was inherently unreasonable. The court rejected this logic, stating:

"I do not think that the claimants’ conduct in this case was so unreasonable as to justify an award of indemnity costs. The mere fact that the claimants proceeded with an application despite a warning from the defendant’s counsel that the application was without merit does not, in itself, constitute such unreasonableness." (at [4])

The court observed that the claimants' application, while unsuccessful, was not "wholly devoid of substance" nor was it an "abuse of the court's processes." The court further clarified that a party's "reservation of rights" to seek indemnity costs in correspondence does not bind the court’s discretion. Under O 21 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021, the court retains full discretion over costs, and a unilateral warning by one party cannot override the established legal threshold for indemnity awards.

Moving to the quantum of costs, the court turned to Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. This appendix provides a range of S$3,000 to S$11,000 for summonses involving a stay of proceedings pending appeal. The court evaluated the parties' competing submissions against this range. The defendant’s request for S$18,000 was found to be "excessive" and well outside the suggested guidelines. Conversely, the claimants’ proposal of S$2,000 was found to be "too low" as it fell below the minimum suggested by the guidelines (at [5]).

The court acknowledged that the guidelines in Appendix G are not mandatory and that the court may depart from them where the circumstances of the case warrant such a move. However, in the present case, Choo Han Teck J found no compelling reason to depart from the range. The court noted that SUM 3351 was "relatively straightforward," involving only one round of affidavits and written submissions. While the defendant argued that the volume of materials was significant, the court balanced this against the lack of procedural complexity.

The court also addressed the claimants' reliance on various precedents where costs for stay applications were awarded in the range of S$1,000 to S$3,000. The court dismissed the utility of these precedents, noting that costs determinations are highly fact-sensitive. Factors such as the volume of affidavits, the length of written submissions, the time spent on research, and the specific conduct of the parties vary from case to case. Choo Han Teck J remarked:

"I do not find these cases to be particularly helpful. Each case involves different factual and procedural circumstances... The determination of costs remains largely within the court’s discretion, to be exercised based on the specific circumstances of each matter." (at [6])

In determining the final figure, the court sought a balance. It recognized that while the application was straightforward, the defendant’s counsel still had to review a significant volume of materials to prepare their response. Consequently, the court determined that an award at the lower end of the Appendix G range was appropriate, but not as low as the claimants had suggested. The court ultimately fixed the costs at S$5,000, which it deemed a fair and reasonable amount for the work performed on a standard basis. The court also allowed for disbursements in the sum of S$286, which were not contested as being unreasonable.

What Was the Outcome?

The court dismissed the defendant's request for indemnity costs and his claim for S$18,000 in professional fees. Instead, the court ordered that the costs of the stay application (SUM 3351) be paid by the claimants to the defendant on a standard basis. The quantum of these costs was fixed at S$5,000. In addition to the professional fees, the court ordered the claimants to pay the defendant's disbursements, which were quantified at S$286.

The operative order of the court was stated as follows:

"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 defendant's initial demand of S$18,286 (inclusive of disbursements) and a moderate increase from the claimants' proposed "all-in" sum of S$2,000. The court's decision to stay within the Appendix G guidelines (S$3,000 to S$11,000) while leaning toward the lower end reflected its assessment that the application was procedurally simple but required a non-negligible amount of preparatory work. The order for disbursements was made on the basis that they were reasonable expenses incurred in the course of defending the summons. No further orders were made regarding the underlying costs of the main action, which remained subject to the prior orders of 20 November 2025.

Why Does This Case Matter?

The significance of Gurpreet Gill Maag and others v McKee, Ian lies in its robust defense of the "exceptional" nature of indemnity costs. For practitioners, the judgment serves as a clear warning that the "warning letter" strategy—whereby a party threatens indemnity costs early in an interlocutory dispute—will not be sufficient to move the court to depart from the standard basis of costs. The court has signaled that it will not allow the threat of punitive costs to be used as a tactical bludgeon to discourage parties from bringing applications that, while perhaps weak, do not rise to the level of an abuse of process or "high degree of unreasonableness."

The case also provides a helpful illustration of how the Singapore courts utilize Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. It demonstrates that the court views these guidelines as a primary reference point, and while they are not strictly binding, a party seeking a sum significantly outside the suggested range (like the defendant's request for S$18,000) bears a heavy burden to justify such a departure. By landing on S$5,000 for a "straightforward" stay application, the court has provided a useful benchmark for future stay applications involving a single round of affidavits. It suggests that for standard interlocutory work, the court is likely to remain within the lower to middle tiers of the Appendix G ranges unless there is demonstrable complexity or extraordinary effort required.

Furthermore, the judgment reinforces the principle of judicial discretion in costs. By dismissing the claimants' list of precedents, Choo Han Teck J emphasized that costs are not a matter of "precedent-matching." This encourages practitioners to focus their costs submissions on the specific work done in the case at hand—the number of pages reviewed, the hours of research, the complexity of the legal issues—rather than simply pointing to what was awarded in a different case years prior. This focus on the "specific circumstances of each matter" ensures that costs awards remain proportional to the actual litigation effort expended.

Finally, the case contributes to the doctrinal lineage of costs law in Singapore by affirming the relevance of the Victor Kermit Kiam II standard. It places the Singapore High Court firmly in line with common law traditions that protect the standard basis of assessment as a means of ensuring access to justice. If indemnity costs were too easily obtained, the risk of litigation would become prohibitive for many, even in interlocutory stages. This judgment maintains the balance by ensuring that only truly egregious conduct is met with the financial penalty of indemnity costs.

Practice Pointers

• Indemnity Costs are Exceptional: Practitioners must remember that indemnity costs require a "high degree of unreasonableness." Simply being wrong on the law or proceeding with a weak application is insufficient to meet this threshold.
• Warning Letters are Not Determinative: Sending a letter warning of an indemnity costs claim does not automatically entitle a party to such an award. The court will independently assess the reasonableness of the opponent's conduct regardless of prior warnings.
• Adhere to Appendix G: When submitting on costs, parties should align their requests with the ranges provided in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021. Requests significantly exceeding these ranges (e.g., S$18,000 vs. a S$11,000 cap) are likely to be viewed as excessive by the court.
• Focus on Case-Specific Facts: Rather than relying on a "basket of precedents" from other cases, practitioners should detail the specific volume of materials, the number of affidavits, and the complexity of the legal research involved in the current matter to justify their costs claim.
• Proportionality is Key: For straightforward applications involving only one round of affidavits, the court is inclined toward the lower end of the guideline ranges. Avoid over-lawyering simple summonses if you intend to recover the full cost of that work.
• Disbursements Must be Reasonable: Ensure that disbursements are clearly quantified and reasonable, as the court will award them separately from professional fees on a standard basis.

Subsequent Treatment

As this judgment was delivered in February 2026, there is no recorded subsequent treatment in the extracted metadata. However, the decision reinforces the long-standing principle that indemnity costs are exceptional and reserved for cases of high unreasonableness, a doctrine that continues to be a cornerstone of Singapore's civil procedure regarding costs assessment.

Legislation Referenced

• Rules of Court 2021, O 21 r 2(2): Cited as the source of the court's overarching discretion to determine by whom and to what extent costs are to be paid.
• Supreme Court Directions 2021, Appendix G: Applied to determine the appropriate range of costs for a summons seeking a stay of proceedings pending appeal (S$3,000 to S$11,000).

Cases Cited

• Victor Kermit Kiam II v MGN Limited [2002] 2 All ER 242: Considered and applied for the principle that indemnity costs are exceptional and require a high degree of unreasonableness in a party's conduct.

Source Documents

• Original judgment PDF: Download (PDF, hosted on Legal Wires CDN)
• Official eLitigation record: View on elitigation.sg