Case Details
- Citation: Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp [2002] SGHC 228
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2002-09-30
- Judges: Choo Han Teck JC
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Takenaka Corp
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [2002] SGHC 228, Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock [1983] 2 MLJ xciv, New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd v Ng Whye Keng [1978] 2 MLJ xxiv, Engelin Teh & Partners v Shoba Gunasekaran, Bill of Costs 1/2002, Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927
- Judgment Length: 3 pages, 1,573 words
Summary
This case involves a dispute over the taxation of costs awarded to the claimant, Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, in an arbitration proceeding against the respondent, Takenaka Corp. The key issues were the appropriate hourly rate for the claimant's lead counsel, whether "getting-up" costs should be included in the costs thrown away, and the proper calculation of witness costs when the arbitration hearing was adjourned. The High Court made several rulings on these issues, reducing the overall costs awarded to the claimant.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute was an arbitration proceeding between Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and Takenaka Corp regarding a sub-contract for a project at the Changi International Airport. The sub-contract sum was approximately $18 million, with Mero Asia Pacific's claim being $3.805 million and Takenaka Corp's counterclaim being $3.08 million. The arbitration was originally scheduled for 17 days of hearings between July 8 and July 29, 2002.
However, on July 6, 2002, the arbitrator adjourned 13 days of the scheduled hearings to November 2002 due to a late amendment by Takenaka Corp and the consequential discovery required. The claimant, Mero Asia Pacific, was awarded costs thrown away as a result of this adjournment. The parties subsequently filed cross-applications for a review of the assistant registrar's taxation of those costs.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- The appropriate hourly rate for the claimant's lead counsel, Mr. Tan, who was a director at Drew & Napier LLC with 8 years of experience.
- Whether "getting-up" costs, i.e. the time spent by counsel preparing for the original hearing dates, should be included in the costs thrown away.
- The proper calculation of witness costs when the arbitration hearing was adjourned, as the witnesses had set aside time to attend the original hearing dates.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the issue of Mr. Tan's hourly rate, the court acknowledged that his charge-out rate of $600 per hour as a director of a major law firm should be reviewed independently, rather than by comparison to an assistant of a senior counsel in a different case. The court did not find the rate to be unreasonable.
Regarding "getting-up" costs, the court disagreed with the respondent's reliance on the case of Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock, stating that it should not be considered a good precedent on this point. The court held that where the court orders costs thrown away, the taxing master is entitled to consider the time spent on "getting-up" that was wasted, even if the court did not specifically order "getting-up" costs. However, in this case, the court found that the $32,000 claimed for "getting-up" costs was excessive, given the relatively short adjournment of 14 days, and reduced the amount to $15,000.
On the issue of witness costs, the court acknowledged the principle that witnesses should be reimbursed for reasonable expenses and loss of earnings, as established in authorities such as Halsbury's Laws of England and Petrunic v Barnes. However, the court found that in the context of "costs thrown away" due to an adjournment, the witnesses should not be compensated as if they had actually attended the hearing, as they did not incur the loss of earnings they had anticipated. The court reduced the witness costs from the $15,392 awarded by the assistant registrar to $2,000 per witness, for a total of $4,000.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court made the following orders:
- Reduced the costs awarded for Mr. Tan's "getting-up" work from $32,000 to $15,000.
- Reduced the witness costs from $15,392 to $4,000 (i.e., $2,000 per witness).
- Upheld the assistant registrar's decision on Mr. Tan's hourly rate of $600 per hour.
The overall effect was a reduction in the total costs awarded to the claimant, Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides valuable guidance on the principles and considerations that courts will apply when reviewing the taxation of costs, particularly in the context of "costs thrown away" due to an adjournment of proceedings.
The key takeaways from this case are:
- The court will review the lead counsel's hourly rate independently, rather than by comparison to other lawyers, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- The court may allow "getting-up" costs as part of the costs thrown away, even if the court did not specifically order such costs, as long as the amount claimed is reasonable.
- When calculating witness costs for "costs thrown away" due to an adjournment, the court will not automatically compensate the witnesses as if they had attended the hearing, but will instead consider the actual loss of earnings or opportunities they may have incurred.
These principles provide useful guidance for legal practitioners when preparing and defending cost submissions, as well as for courts and taxing masters when reviewing the taxation of costs.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [2002] SGHC 228
- Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock [1983] 2 MLJ xciv
- New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd v Ng Whye Keng [1978] 2 MLJ xxiv
- Engelin Teh & Partners v Shoba Gunasekaran, Bill of Costs 1/2002
- Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927
Source Documents
This article analyses [2002] SGHC 228 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.