Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 33
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-02-10
- Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tjiang Giok Moy and another
- Defendant/Respondent: Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021
- Cases Cited: [2013] SGHC 144, [2022] SGHC 161, [2023] SGCA 21, [2024] SGHC 84, [2025] SGHC 236, [2026] SGHC 33
- Judgment Length: 17 pages, 4,168 words
Summary
This case deals with the issue of costs following the High Court's earlier decision in Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter [2025] SGHC 236. In the earlier judgment, the court found in favor of the claimants, Tjiang Giok Moy, Ang Eileen, and Banner (China) Investment Company Limited, against the defendant Ang Jimmy Tjun Min. The main disputed issue in this costs judgment was whether the claimants were entitled to one set of costs or two, as the two suits (OC 56 and OC 192) were heard together but not formally consolidated. The court ultimately determined that the claimants could claim two sets of costs, but applied a discount to account for the overlap between the two suits.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
This case arose from two separate originating claims heard together by the High Court. In Originating Claim No. 56 of 2022 (OC 56), Mdm Tjiang Giok Moy ("Mrs Ang") and Ms Eileen Ang ("Eileen") claimed against Mr Ang Jimmy Tjun Min ("Jimmy") for unauthorized withdrawals made by Jimmy from their Citibank account. The three of them are also shareholders of Banner (China) Investment Company Limited ("Banner"). In Originating Claim No. 192 of 2022 (OC 192), Banner claimed against Jimmy for the return of an advance made to him by the company.
The two originating claims were tried together, and in the earlier judgment, the court found that the claimants had succeeded in their substantive prayers and awarded costs to them. However, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of costs, with the main disputed issue being whether the claimants were entitled to one set of costs or two.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue was whether OC 56 and OC 192 were consolidated or merely heard together, as this would determine whether the claimants were entitled to one set of costs or two. The defendant, Jimmy, argued that the two suits were consolidated and should therefore attract only one set of costs, while the claimants contended that the suits were not consolidated and they should be awarded two sets of costs.
The court also had to consider whether the claimants were entitled to an uplift in costs due to Jimmy's conduct during the litigation, as well as whether the claimants could claim costs for work done in obtaining permissions to file various applications.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court examined the relevant authorities on the distinction between consolidated suits and suits heard together. It cited the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company, which outlined the essential features of consolidation and a joint hearing. The court also referred to the Court of Appeal's decision in How Weng Fan v Sengkang Town Council, which distinguished between consolidated suits and suits merely heard together.
In the present case, the court found that OC 56 and OC 192 were not formally consolidated, as the parties continued to maintain separate pleadings throughout the proceedings. The court noted that this was also the understanding of the parties, as evidenced by the discussions during the hearing before the Assistant Registrar in HC/SUM 2728/2023.
Regarding the claimants' request for an uplift in costs due to Jimmy's conduct, the court acknowledged that while the earlier judgment had found Jimmy to be an evasive and inconsistent witness, this factor alone did not automatically warrant an uplift. The court stated that it must consider all the relevant circumstances in determining the appropriate costs award.
On the issue of costs for permissions to file applications, the court agreed with Jimmy's submission that such work was merely "administrative" and should not attract separate costs.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ultimately held that the claimants were entitled to claim two sets of costs, one for OC 56 and one for OC 192. However, the court applied a discount to the costs to account for the overlap between the two suits, as they were heard together.
For OC 56, the court awarded party-and-party costs of $175,000 to Mrs Ang and Eileen, and for OC 192, the court awarded party-and-party costs of $170,000 to Banner. The court also awarded the claimants their respective disbursements.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides valuable guidance on the distinction between consolidated suits and suits heard together, and the implications for the award of costs. The court's analysis of the relevant authorities and its application of the principles to the facts of this case will be useful for practitioners when dealing with similar situations.
The court's approach to the issue of an uplift in costs due to a party's conduct during litigation is also noteworthy. The court emphasized that the decision to apply an uplift must be based on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances, rather than a mechanical application of the rule.
Additionally, the court's ruling on the recoverability of costs for permissions to file applications serves as a reminder that courts will scrutinize such claims and may disallow them if they are deemed to be merely "administrative" in nature.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021
Cases Cited
- [2013] SGHC 144 (Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng and anor)
- [2022] SGHC 161 (Ayaz Ahmed v Mustaq Ahmad)
- [2023] SGCA 21 (How Weng Fan v Sengkang Town Council)
- [2024] SGHC 84 (Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin and another suit)
- [2025] SGHC 236 (Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter)
- [2026] SGHC 33 (Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHC 33 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.