Case Details
- Citation: [2018] SGHC 164
- Title: Long Well Group Limited & 3 Ors v Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft & 3 Ors
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 23 July 2018
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Case Type: Civil suit (costs following judgment; further arguments on costs)
- Suit No: Suit No 28 of 2012
- Procedural Posture: Post-judgment application for leave to make further arguments on costs
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Long Well Group Limited & 3 Ors
- Defendant/Respondent: Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft & 3 Ors
- Plaintiffs (named): (1) Long Well Group Limited; (2) PT Citrabumi Sacna; (3) Private Energy Pte Ltd; (4) First Power International Limited
- Defendants (named): (1) Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft; (2) Commerz Asset Management Asia Pacific Pte Ltd; (3) Commerzbank Asset Management Asia Ltd; (4) Commerz Asia Best SPC
- Key Legal Areas: Civil procedure; costs; inherent jurisdiction; further arguments
- Statutes Referenced: Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”)
- Practice Directions Referenced: Supreme Court Practice Directions (para 82(1)(d))
- Cases Cited: Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2001] 2 SLR(R) 246
- Judgment Length: 5 pages; 1,173 words
- Hearing Dates: 26 March 2018; 7 May 2018
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Substantive Judgment Date (context): 16 March 2018 (costs ordered to follow event)
- Representation: Plaintiffs: Lee & Lee (Tan Tee Jim SC, Christopher James De Souza, Amanda Lim Jia Yan, Basil Lee and Gayathri Sivasurian). Defendants: Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (Andre Yeap SC, Lai Yew Fei and Khelvin Xu Cunhan)
Summary
This High Court decision concerns a post-judgment application by the defendants to make further arguments on the issue of costs. The court had earlier delivered its substantive judgment on 16 March 2018 and ordered that costs would “follow the event”, to be taxed if not agreed. After that, the defendants sought leave to advance additional arguments specifically on costs, contending that the plaintiffs had failed on “each and every one of the numerous issues” raised at trial, save for one claim for breach of contract, and that the quantum claimed was excessive.
The court rejected the defendants’ application. First, it held that the request for further arguments was procedurally defective because it did not comply with paragraph 82(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions, which requires the request to state the law under which it is made. Secondly, even on the merits, the court found no basis to depart from the earlier costs order. The plaintiffs had substantially succeeded, being awarded more than 80% of the amount claimed, and the court did not accept that the plaintiffs’ unsuccessful issues were unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances.
In addition to affirming the “costs follow the event” principle, the court exercised its power to fix costs in the absence of agreement or taxation. It ordered costs payable by the third defendant to the plaintiffs (fixed at $200,000), and costs payable by the plaintiffs to the first and fourth defendants (fixed at $40,000 each). It also dealt with costs relating to the defendants’ counterclaim, ordering costs payable by the third and fourth defendants to the plaintiffs (fixed at $10,000 each plaintiff) because the counterclaim failed.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute arose from a civil suit (Suit No 28 of 2012) between multiple corporate parties. The plaintiffs were Long Well Group Limited and three related entities: PT Citrabumi Sacna, Private Energy Pte Ltd, and First Power International Limited. The defendants were Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft and three related entities: Commerz Asset Management Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Commerzbank Asset Management Asia Ltd, and Commerz Asia Best SPC. The litigation involved multiple issues at trial, including at least one claim for breach of contract that ultimately succeeded for the plaintiffs.
On 16 March 2018, the High Court delivered its substantive judgment. The court’s decision on the merits resulted in the plaintiffs obtaining a substantial award. Although the detailed substantive reasoning is not reproduced in the extract provided, the costs decision makes clear that the plaintiffs succeeded on a key claim and were awarded more than 80% of the amount claimed. The court therefore ordered that costs would “follow the event”, with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
Following the substantive judgment, the procedural posture shifted to costs. On 21 March 2018, counsel for the defendants requested leave to make further arguments before the court, limited to the issue of costs. The defendants’ central complaint was not that the substantive outcome was wrong, but that the costs order should be reconsidered. They argued that the plaintiffs had raised numerous issues at trial and failed on each of them except for the breach of contract claim. In their view, this should have led the court to depart from the default rule that costs follow the event.
In response, the plaintiffs challenged the defendants’ application on two fronts. First, they argued that the request was procedurally defective because it did not comply with the Supreme Court Practice Directions, specifically paragraph 82(1)(d), which requires the request to state the law under which it is made. Secondly, they argued that section 28B of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act only permits further arguments “after any hearing other than a trial of an action”, and that in this case there had been a trial. The plaintiffs therefore submitted that the defendants’ proper recourse was an appeal, or alternatively that the court should reject the further arguments and maintain the costs order.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first legal issue was procedural: whether the defendants’ request for leave to make further arguments on costs was properly made. This required the court to consider compliance with paragraph 82(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions, and whether the statutory framework in section 28B of the SCJA applied to the circumstances of the case.
The second issue was substantive and costs-focused: whether the court should depart from its earlier order that costs follow the event. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs failed on numerous issues and that the trial would have been shorter had the plaintiffs not raised so many issues. They also argued that the quantum claimed was excessive. The plaintiffs, by contrast, maintained that they had substantially succeeded and that the unsuccessful issues were not unreasonable or unnecessary.
A related issue concerned the scope of the court’s power after a final judgment. The defendants appeared to argue that the court’s ability to hear further arguments was constrained by section 28B and possibly affected by the filing of a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs relied on the court’s inherent jurisdiction to recall or revisit a decision before it is perfected, drawing on authority such as Thomson Plaza.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began with the plaintiffs’ procedural objection. It agreed that the defendants’ request for further arguments did not comply with paragraph 82(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Practice Directions. The court emphasised that where a clear rule applies, it would not be appropriate for the court to ignore non-compliance. Importantly, the court treated this as a sufficient basis to dismiss the application, even before considering the merits.
However, the court proceeded to address the merits “for completeness”. On the substantive costs question, the court did not accept the defendants’ approach of counting the number of issues on which the plaintiffs failed. The court acknowledged that, under the defendants’ method, the plaintiffs might have failed on more issues than they succeeded. Nevertheless, the court considered the significance of the issues on which the plaintiffs succeeded. It held that the successful issue was not insignificant: the plaintiffs succeeded in more than 80% of the amount claimed.
The court also addressed the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ unsuccessful issues protracted the trial and were unnecessary. The court found no reason to change the costs order on that basis. It observed that it was not unreasonable for the plaintiffs to have raised the claims that were ultimately unsuccessful. In other words, the court did not treat the plaintiffs’ litigation strategy as improper or unduly expansive for costs purposes. The court further noted that the plaintiffs’ evidence and factual matters raised at trial would likely have been raised even if the plaintiffs had confined their claim to the successful breach of contract claim.
On the question of the court’s power to hear further arguments, the court clarified the relationship between section 28B of the SCJA and the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had argued that section 28B was inapplicable because it only allows further arguments after hearings other than a trial of an action. The court accepted that the power under section 28B may be limited in this way, but it held that the same limitation does not necessarily apply to the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The court referred to Thomson Plaza, where it was said to be “settled law” that even in respect of a final order, a judge has an inherent jurisdiction to recall the decision and hear further arguments so long as the order is not yet perfected.
The court also dealt with an argument advanced by the plaintiffs relating to the filing of a notice of appeal. The plaintiffs appeared to suggest that once a notice of appeal was filed, the court no longer had inherent jurisdiction. The court rejected that contention as not relevant to the costs application. It reasoned that the notice of appeal was filed after the defendants sought leave to make further arguments, and that the questions of further arguments and costs had to await the court’s decision. Therefore, the filing of the notice of appeal did not deprive the court of the ability to deal with the further arguments on costs in the circumstances.
Having found no procedural basis and no substantive merit to alter the costs order, the court affirmed its earlier direction that costs follow the event. It then moved to quantify and allocate costs, taking into account the parties’ relative success and the fact that certain defendants were “minor parties” represented by the same counsel.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the defendants’ application for leave to make further arguments on costs and affirmed the earlier costs order that costs follow the event. Because counsel agreed to make submissions on costs in lieu of taxation or agreement, the court fixed the costs amounts rather than leaving them for taxation.
Specifically, the court ordered that costs be paid by the third defendant to the plaintiffs fixed at $200,000. It also ordered that costs be paid by the plaintiffs to the first and fourth defendants fixed at $40,000 each, noting that the first and fourth defendants were minor parties and were represented by the same counsel. As for costs relating to the counterclaim, since the counterclaim taken out by the third and fourth defendants against the first, second and third plaintiffs failed, the court ordered costs to be paid by the third and fourth defendants to the plaintiffs fixed at $10,000 each plaintiff.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is practically significant for litigators because it reinforces the default principle that costs follow the event, while also clarifying that courts will not readily depart from that principle merely because a party failed on multiple issues at trial. The court’s reasoning illustrates that costs analysis is not a mechanical “issue-counting” exercise. Instead, it focuses on the overall outcome and the significance of the successful issues, including whether the claimant substantially succeeded in the amount claimed.
From a procedural standpoint, the case also underscores the importance of strict compliance with the Supreme Court Practice Directions when seeking further arguments. The court treated non-compliance with paragraph 82(1)(d) as a standalone reason to dismiss the application. For practitioners, this is a reminder that procedural defects in applications for further arguments can be fatal, even where the court might otherwise be willing to consider the merits.
Finally, the decision provides useful guidance on the scope of the court’s power to hear further arguments after judgment. By distinguishing between the statutory limitation in section 28B of the SCJA and the court’s inherent jurisdiction (as discussed in Thomson Plaza), the court confirmed that inherent jurisdiction may still be relevant where an order is not perfected. Practitioners should therefore consider both statutory pathways and inherent jurisdiction principles when advising on post-judgment applications, especially in relation to costs.
Legislation Referenced
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), s 28B
- Supreme Court Practice Directions, paragraph 82(1)(d)
Cases Cited
- Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) [2001] 2 SLR(R) 246
Source Documents
This article analyses [2018] SGHC 164 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.