Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC(I) 8
- Title: Marketlend Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Originating Application No: 16 of 2023
- Judgment Date (first instance costs decision): 19 February 2025
- Date Judgment Reserved / Subsequent date shown in record: 11 March 2025 (judgment reserved noted)
- Judge: Sir Henry Bernard Eder IJ
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Marketlend Pty Ltd (and Australian Executor Trustees Limited)
- Defendant/Respondent: QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd
- Procedural Posture: Costs following trial; claim dismissed in earlier judgment
- Earlier Judgment Referenced: Marketlend Pty Ltd and another v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 1 (the “Judgment”)
- Earlier Trial Reference: SIC/OA 16/2023 (the “Suit”)
- Transfer of Proceedings: Transferred from the General Division of the High Court (HC/OC 405/2022) to the SICC on or around 25 September 2023
- Issue on This Application: Quantum of costs (not entitlement), split into pre-transfer and post-transfer periods
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (ROC) (Order 21 rules 3(2), 21 r 22(2), 21 r 2(2))
- Practice Directions / Guidelines Referenced: Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions; SICC Costs Guidelines (as described in the judgment)
- Cases Cited (in extract): DBX and DBY v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5; Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 214; Kiri Industries Limited v Senda International Capital Limited & another [2024] SGHC(I) 14; Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2024] 3 SLR 78
- Judgment Length: 27 pages, 6,694 words
Summary
This SICC decision concerns the assessment of costs after the Court had already dismissed the claimants’ claims against QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd following trial. The earlier merits judgment rejected the claimants’ case in full, so the defendant was entitled to costs in principle. The only live dispute was the quantum of costs, and critically, the costs had to be assessed differently for the period before and after the transfer of the proceedings from the General Division of the High Court to the SICC.
The Court accepted that the applicable framework for costs differs depending on whether work was done pre-transfer or post-transfer. It therefore treated the costs in two tranches: “Pre-Transfer” costs (incurred while the matter was in the General Division) and “Post-Transfer” costs (incurred after the matter was transferred to the SICC). The claimants argued that the defendant’s costs claim was disproportionate and unreasonable, pointing to the SICC Costs Guidelines and to the scarcity of high-cost awards in comparable SICC cases. The Court, however, proceeded to evaluate the reasonableness of the costs by reference to the relevant procedural rules, the objective standard of what a reasonable litigant would recover, and the specific complexity and conduct of the case.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
Although the present judgment is a costs decision, it is anchored in the procedural and factual context of the underlying dispute. Marketlend Pty Ltd and Australian Executor Trustees Limited (together, the “claimants”) sued QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (the “defendant”) under a trade credit insurance arrangement. The earlier trial judgment (Marketlend Pty Ltd and another v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 1) dismissed the claimants’ claims in full. The costs decision therefore assumes the defendant’s success on the merits and focuses on what costs should be recoverable for the work done by the defendant’s legal team.
One important factual feature for costs purposes was the procedural history. The Suit was originally docketed in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore as HC/OC 405/2022. It was transferred to the SICC on or around 25 September 2023. The Court emphasised that the applicable principles for costs differ for work done before transfer and work done after transfer. This meant that the Court could not simply apply one uniform approach to the entire costs period; it had to split the assessment into two distinct phases.
In broad terms, the defendant sought a total of S$2,616,897.26, comprising pre-transfer costs of S$232,747.87 (including GST and reflecting 75% of legal fees, plus reasonable disbursements), post-transfer costs of S$2,348,149.39 (including GST and reflecting 100% of legal fees, plus substantial disbursements), and an additional S$36,000 for preparation of its costs submissions. The claimants did not dispute that the defendant was the successful party; instead, they attacked the quantum as excessive, arguing that the claimed amounts were disproportionate to the amount in dispute and inconsistent with costs precedents and guidelines.
The claimants’ proportionality argument was supported by comparisons to other SICC cases and to the SICC Costs Guidelines. They noted that there were almost no examples in the SICC Costs Guidelines where costs above S$2m were ordered. They also pointed to two cases where costs of approximately S$5m and S$6m were awarded, arguing that those cases involved significantly longer trials, appointment of Senior Counsel, and much larger quantum in dispute. The claimants further contended that the defendant’s claimed costs were not only high in absolute terms but also without precedent in the SICC context.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was the assessment of costs following a fully contested trial, where entitlement was not disputed. The Court had to determine the quantum of recoverable costs, applying the correct legal framework for the pre-transfer and post-transfer periods. This required the Court to identify and apply the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC) for the pre-transfer period, and the SICC-specific costs approach for the post-transfer period.
A second issue was the reasonableness and proportionality of the defendant’s claimed costs. The claimants argued that the defendant’s costs were disproportionate and unreasonable, particularly when measured against the amount claimed in the Suit (US$9,035,365.38) and against costs precedents and guidelines. The Court therefore had to consider whether the claimed amounts were objectively reasonable, including whether they aligned with what is generally accepted as likely to be incurred for a dispute of this type.
Third, the Court had to consider whether it was appropriate to depart from the relevant costs guidelines. In the pre-transfer analysis, the defendant argued for departure from Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions, relying on the complexity and novelty of the issues, the need for extensive reconstruction of sales chains, the critical importance of the litigation to the defendant, and the parties’ conduct (including disclosure issues). The Court had to decide whether those factors justified the requested departure and, if so, how to quantify the departure in a principled manner.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The Court began by setting out the governing principles for costs in the pre-transfer period. It referred to O 21 r 3(2) ROC, which provides that costs follow the event unless the Court considers some other order appropriate. It then emphasised O 21 r 22(2) ROC, which entitles the successful party to a “reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred”. The Court further relied on O 21 r 2(2) ROC, which requires the Court to have regard to all relevant circumstances, including efforts at amicable resolution, complexity and novelty, the skill and responsibility required, time and labour expended, urgency and importance, conduct of the parties, proportionality, and the stage at which proceedings concluded.
Crucially, the Court explained that the “reasonableness” of costs is assessed objectively. It cited DBX and DBY v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5 for the proposition that the objective standard is shaped by the normative question of what a successful party ought to recover for the work done in the context of the dispute, and that costs are intended to enable a litigant with reasonable merits to pursue justice. The Court also noted that costs precedents and the relevant costs guidelines serve as a guide to what levels of fees are generally accepted as reasonable, while still leaving the Court discretion to depart where the circumstances warrant it.
On the defendant’s side, the Court recorded a structured justification for why it should depart from Appendix G. The defendant argued that it prevailed on most defences and that the claim was fully dismissed. It also submitted that the issues, while not all complex, were significant and included untested questions under Singapore law relating to trade credit insurance: the scope of coverage, pre- and post-contract disclosure, and the insured’s cooperation obligations. The defendant further contended that there was no suitable costs precedent due to the novelty of the case.
Another major factor was the evidential and factual reconstruction required. The Court accepted that reconstructing the actual sales chains for the underlying goods demanded specialised knowledge of industry practice and extensive time and labour. The defendant’s legal team had to identify relevant parties, make queries, and elicit responses, and this reconstruction exercise was ongoing from the time the Suit commenced. The Court also noted that the number of solicitors involved was generally three at any point, which the defendant argued was commensurate with the matter’s complexity. These points were relevant to the Court’s assessment of whether the work claimed was genuinely necessary and proportionate.
The Court also addressed proportionality in a broader sense. The defendant argued that the Suit was critical to it beyond the claim value of approximately US$9m, because it was a “test case” for a corporate group facing multiple trade credit insurance litigations. The Court recorded that other ongoing litigations included a Malaysian suit involving an identically worded policy and additional Singapore proceedings with cumulative claim values exceeding US$13m. This context supported the defendant’s submission that the litigation’s importance justified substantial legal effort.
In addition, the Court considered conduct. The defendant asserted that there was nothing in its pre-transfer conduct open to question, while the claimants’ disclosure was problematic: documents were not organised chronologically, were difficult to tally with the document list, omitted attachments (including email attachments), and included attachments that could not be correlated with cover emails. The Court noted that the claimants were directed by the court on 15 September 2023 to file a revised list of documents with email attachments corresponding with cover emails, which delayed the defendant’s review and specific disclosure. This conduct analysis supported the defendant’s argument that some of the legal work claimed was driven by the need to address disclosure deficiencies.
Having identified these factors, the Court turned to the question of departure from Appendix G. It referred to Appendix G’s statement that the precise amount remains discretionary and that the Court may depart from the guidelines depending on the circumstances. It also cited Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 214, where the Court of Appeal departed from Appendix G due to complexity, multiple rounds of submissions, and multiple appellants. Applying that logic, the Court reasoned that the test nature of the case on multiple issues and the critical need for extensive non-party evidence justified departure.
In quantifying the departure, the Court relied on Appendix G’s ranges for pre-trial work (noting that Appendix G provides a range of S$25,000–70,000 for pre-trial work). It then addressed the timing of work relative to transfer. Since some pre-trial work was conducted after transfer, the Court considered that costs of S$50,000 with a multiplier of four should be used to assess pre-transfer costs. This approach yielded a figure of S$200,000, which the Court found close to 75% of the defendant’s pre-transfer legal costs of S$206,127.99. The Court’s reasoning thus demonstrates a method of anchoring the assessment in guidelines while adjusting for the case’s particular demands and timing.
While the extract provided does not include the full post-transfer analysis, the Court’s overall structure is clear: it treated pre-transfer and post-transfer costs separately, applied different principles to each tranche, and used a combination of statutory rules, objective reasonableness, costs precedents, and guideline ranges to reach a principled quantum. The Court also addressed the claimants’ reliance on the scarcity of high-cost awards in the SICC Costs Guidelines, but its reasoning indicates that guideline scarcity is not determinative where the case’s complexity, evidence requirements, and conduct justify higher costs.
What Was the Outcome?
The Court ultimately determined the quantum of costs payable by the claimants to the defendant, after splitting the assessment into pre-transfer and post-transfer periods. It accepted that the defendant, as the successful party, was entitled to costs, and it proceeded to adjust the claimed amounts by reference to the applicable legal framework and the objective reasonableness standard.
Practically, the decision provides guidance on how SICC courts will treat costs claims that are significantly higher than typical guideline outcomes, particularly where the litigation is a “test case” involving novel issues, extensive non-party evidence, and substantial disclosure-related work. The Court’s approach indicates that while costs guidelines and precedents are important, they are not rigid ceilings; the Court will calibrate awards to the actual work required and the procedural context, including the timing of transfer between fora.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how costs are assessed in SICC proceedings where the matter has been transferred from the General Division of the High Court. The Court’s insistence on separate treatment of pre-transfer and post-transfer costs underscores that costs assessment is not merely a mechanical application of one set of guidelines. Instead, lawyers must anticipate that the procedural history will affect the governing principles and the likely outcome of any costs dispute.
Substantively, the case also illustrates how “novelty” and “test case” status can justify departure from costs guidelines. The Court treated untested questions in trade credit insurance—such as the scope of coverage, disclosure obligations, and cooperation obligations—as relevant to complexity and the level of effort required. This is useful for counsel in commercial insurance disputes, where the evidential and legal issues may be fact-intensive and may require extensive reconstruction of transactions and non-party evidence.
Finally, the decision offers practical lessons on disclosure and conduct. The Court’s attention to the claimants’ disclosure deficiencies and the resulting delay in the defendant’s review demonstrates that conduct can influence costs outcomes even where the merits are already decided. For litigators, this reinforces the importance of organised, complete, and correlatable disclosure, particularly in cases involving complex transaction chains and multiple parties.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC), Order 21:
- O 21 r 3(2)
- O 21 r 22(2)
- O 21 r 2(2)
- Supreme Court Practice Directions:
- Appendix G (Costs Guidelines)
Cases Cited
- DBX and DBY v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5
- Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal [2019] 1 SLR 214
- Kiri Industries Limited v Senda International Capital Limited & another [2024] SGHC(I) 14
- Ivanishvili, Bidzina and others v Credit Suisse Trust Ltd [2024] 3 SLR 78
- Marketlend Pty Ltd and another v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 1
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCI 8 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.