Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter [2026] SGHC 33

Case Details

• Citation: [2026] SGHC 33
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 10 February 2026
• Coram: Kwek Mean Luck J
• Case Number: Originating Claim No 56 of 2022; Originating Claim No 192 of 2022
• Hearing Date(s): 31 December 2025, 19 January, 2 February 2026
• Claimants / Plaintiffs: Tjiang Giok Moy; Ang Eileen; Banner (China) Investment Company Limited
• Respondent / Defendant: Ang Jimmy Tjun Min
• Counsel for Claimants: Jaikanth Shankar, Tan Ruo Yu, Ng Shu Wen and Seong Hall Ee Waverly (Davinder Singh Chambers LLC)
• Counsel for Respondent: Lim Joo Toon and Michael Lukamto (Joo Toon LLC) for the defendant in OC 56/2022; Quek Wen Jiang Gerard, Chua Ze Xuan and Vincent Lee Hong Hui (PDLegal LLC) for the defendant in OC 192/2022
• Practice Areas: Civil Procedure — Costs — Principles

Summary

The judgment in Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter [2026] SGHC 33 addresses the consequential issue of costs following the substantive determination of two related originating claims. The primary litigation involved allegations of unauthorized fund withdrawals and the recovery of corporate advances, which culminated in a finding of liability against the defendant, Ang Jimmy Tjun Min ("Jimmy"), in the earlier decision of [2025] SGHC 236. The central procedural controversy in the present costs hearing was whether the claimants were entitled to one set of costs or two, given that the two suits—Originating Claim No 56 of 2022 ("OC 56") and Originating Claim No 192 of 2022 ("OC 192")—were ordered to be heard together but were never formally consolidated.

The court’s determination turned on the fundamental distinction between the consolidation of actions and an order for actions to be heard together. While consolidation merges separate proceedings into a single action with one set of pleadings and one bill of costs, a joint hearing preserves the separate identities of the suits. Kwek Mean Luck J held that because OC 56 and OC 192 maintained their separate identities throughout the proceedings, the claimants were not precluded from seeking two sets of costs. However, the court recognized that a joint hearing inevitably generates cost savings through the overlap of evidence and legal work. Consequently, the court applied a calibrated discount to the costs awarded in each suit to prevent double recovery and reflect the actual efficiencies gained from the joint trial process.

Beyond the "one set or two" issue, the judgment provides a detailed application of the costs guidelines set out in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The court categorized the dispute under "Equity and Trusts," which carries a broad range of $60,000 to $175,000 for party-and-party costs. In determining the final quantum, the court weighed the complexity of the factual matrix, the conduct of the defendant—who was found to be an evasive witness in the substantive trial—and the necessity of the various interlocutory applications filed. The decision serves as a significant clarification for practitioners on how costs are apportioned in multi-suit litigation where procedural efficiency is balanced against the legal reality of separate claims.

Ultimately, the court awarded the claimants in OC 56 party-and-party costs of $104,500 and disbursements of $50,486.30, while the claimants in OC 192 were awarded $99,500 in costs and $23,592.40 in disbursements. Specific awards were also made for interlocutory applications, including SUM 2727, SUM 2728, and SUM 3088. This judgment reinforces the principle that while procedural mechanisms like joint hearings are intended to save time and resources, they do not automatically collapse the distinct legal entitlements of successful litigants to recover costs for their separate causes of action, provided those costs are reasonable and proportionate.

Timeline of Events

1. 2022: Commencement of Originating Claim No 56 of 2022 (OC 56) by Tjiang Giok Moy ("Mrs Ang") and Ang Eileen ("Eileen") against Ang Jimmy Tjun Min ("Jimmy").
2. 2022: Commencement of Originating Claim No 192 of 2022 (OC 192) by Banner (China) Investment Company Limited ("Banner") against Jimmy.
3. 2022: Filing of HC/SUM 3088/2022 by Banner for substituted service on Jimmy.
4. 15 August 2023: Filing of HC/SUM 2727/2023 by Mrs Ang and Eileen to have OC 56 and OC 192 heard together.
5. 15 August 2023: Filing of HC/SUM 2728/2023 by Banner to have OC 56 and OC 192 heard together.
6. 13 October 2023: Assistant Registrar makes a consent order in SUM 2728 for the two actions to be heard together, with documents and evidence in one action to be used in both.
7. 31 December 2025: Substantive hearing of the costs issues commences before Kwek Mean Luck J.
8. 19 January 2026: Continued hearing of the costs submissions.
9. 2 February 2026: Final hearing date for the costs determination.
10. 10 February 2026: Delivery of the costs judgment in [2026] SGHC 33.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The dispute involved two distinct but factually intertwined claims brought against Ang Jimmy Tjun Min ("Jimmy"). The first action, OC 56, was initiated by Tjiang Giok Moy ("Mrs Ang") and Ang Eileen ("Eileen"). The core of their claim concerned unauthorized withdrawals made by Jimmy from a Citibank account held by Mrs Ang and Eileen. The second action, OC 192, was brought by Banner (China) Investment Company Limited ("Banner"), a company in which Mrs Ang, Eileen, and Jimmy were shareholders. Banner’s claim was for the recovery of an advance made to Jimmy. The factual nexus between the two suits was established by the use of the funds; the withdrawal from the Citibank account in OC 56 and the advance from Banner in OC 192 were both utilized by Jimmy to purchase a specific property.

Procedurally, the claimants sought to streamline the litigation. On 15 August 2023, the claimants filed SUM 2727 and SUM 2728, seeking orders that OC 56 and OC 192 be heard together. On 13 October 2023, an Assistant Registrar granted a consent order in SUM 2728. The terms of this order were critical to the subsequent costs dispute: they referred to the actions separately and stipulated that the documents and evidence in one action would be used in both. Crucially, the actions were not consolidated into a single proceeding. They maintained separate case numbers, separate sets of pleadings, and separate identities throughout the trial process.

In the substantive trial, the court found in favor of the claimants in both suits. The judgment in [2025] SGHC 236 detailed the claimants' success in their substantive prayers. Jimmy was found to have acted without authorization regarding the Citibank funds and was held liable to return the advance to Banner. During the trial, Jimmy’s credibility was a significant issue; the court characterized him as an "evasive and inconsistent" witness. This finding on conduct became a point of contention during the costs hearing, as the claimants argued it justified an uplift in the costs awarded.

Following the substantive judgment, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the quantum of costs. The claimants sought substantial sums: $175,000.8 for OC 56 and $170,000.9 for OC 192, representing the upper limit of the "Equity and Trusts" category in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. They also sought significant disbursements, totaling $50,486.30 for OC 56 and $23,592.40 for OC 192. Jimmy, conversely, argued that the two suits should be treated as one for the purpose of costs because they were heard together and shared a common factual background. He proposed much lower figures: $61,000 for OC 56 and $56,000 for OC 192, arguing that the claimants' requested amounts were unreasonable and failed to account for the significant overlap between the two actions.

The interlocutory history also added layers to the costs claim. In SUM 3088/2022, Banner had applied for substituted service on Jimmy. In SUM 2727/2023 and SUM 2728/2023, the claimants had applied for the joint hearing. In all these instances, the court had previously ordered that costs be "in the cause." Additionally, the claimants sought costs for work done in relation to "requests for applications" that were either rejected or not proceeded with, which Jimmy contested as being merely administrative in nature. The court was thus tasked with untangling these various threads to arrive at a fair and proportionate costs award that reflected the procedural reality of two separate but jointly heard suits.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate costs framework for actions that are heard together but not consolidated. This required the court to address several sub-issues:

• One Set of Costs or Two: Whether the claimants were entitled to separate bills of costs for OC 56 and OC 192, or whether the procedural efficiency of a joint hearing necessitated a single set of costs. This involved an analysis of the distinction between consolidation and joint hearings under the Rules of Court.
• Quantum of Party-and-Party Costs: What the appropriate quantum of costs should be within the "Equity and Trusts" category of Appendix G. This required the court to assess the complexity of the case, the amount of work reasonably incurred, and the reasonableness of the claimants' request for the maximum guideline amount.
• Impact of Overlap: How to quantify the discount to be applied to the costs to account for the overlap in evidence, discovery, and trial time between the two suits.
• Conduct and Uplift: Whether the defendant's conduct as an "evasive and inconsistent" witness justified an uplift in costs, and how such conduct should be balanced against the general principles of party-and-party costs.
• Interlocutory and Administrative Costs: Whether the claimants could recover costs for "requests for applications" that did not proceed to a formal hearing, and the appropriate quantum for the interlocutory applications where costs were ordered to be in the cause.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues

The court’s analysis began with the fundamental distinction between consolidation and joint hearings. Kwek Mean Luck J relied on the principles articulated in Wood v Farr Ford Ltd [2008] OJ No 4092, which were previously considered by the High Court in [2024] SGHC 84. The court quoted the following passage from Wood v Farr Ford Ltd at [10]:

Where two actions are consolidated, they become, and proceed as, one action. Thus, there is “one set of pleadings, one set of discoveries, one judgment, and one bill of costs” … If two actions are ordered to be tried together, “the actions maintain their separate identity and there are separate pleadings, discoveries, judgments and bills of costs. But the actions are set down on the list one after the other to be ‘tried in such manner as the court directs’."

Applying this to the present case, the court noted that OC 56 and OC 192 were never consolidated. The parties maintained separate pleadings, and the consent order in SUM 2728 specifically referred to the actions separately. The court also cited [2023] SGCA 21, where the Court of Appeal observed at [51] that suits that are not consolidated but merely heard together maintain their separate identity. Consequently, the court held that the claimants were not precluded from claiming two sets of costs. However, the court accepted Jimmy’s submission that there were significant cost savings from the joint hearing, which must be reflected in the final award. The court rejected the approach in [2013] SGHC 144, distinguishing it on the basis that the suits in that case were found to be "consolidated and inextricably bound up together" (at [8]).

In determining the quantum of party-and-party costs, the court looked to Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The parties agreed that the "Equity and Trusts" category was appropriate, which provides a range of $60,000 to $175,000. The claimants sought the maximum of $175,000 for each suit, while Jimmy proposed $61,000 and $56,000 respectively. The court noted that while the claimants succeeded, they bore the burden of showing that the costs sought were reasonable, as per the Court of Appeal's guidance in Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96. The court found the claimants' request for the maximum amount to be excessive, given that the trial lasted only five days and the issues, while involving some complexity, did not justify the ceiling of the guideline range for each suit.

The court then addressed the issue of overlap. Jimmy argued for a significant discount, citing Pertamina [2024] SGHC(I) 26, where a 7.5% discount was applied. The court observed that the extent of overlap is a fact-sensitive inquiry. In this case, the overlap was substantial because the funds from both suits were used for the same property purchase, and the evidence of the primary witnesses (Mrs Ang, Eileen, and Jimmy) was common to both. The court determined that a fair approach was to assess the costs for each suit independently within the Appendix G range and then apply a discount. For OC 56, the court started with a base figure of $110,000, and for OC 192, a base figure of $105,000. These figures were chosen to reflect the relative complexity and work involved in each, with OC 56 being slightly more involved.

Regarding Jimmy’s conduct, the court acknowledged the finding in [2025] SGHC 236 that he was an evasive witness. However, the court cautioned that an uplift in costs is not an automatic consequence of a witness being found unreliable. The court must consider whether the conduct unnecessarily protracted the proceedings or increased the costs. While Jimmy's conduct was a factor, the court did not find it so egregious as to warrant a substantial uplift beyond what was already reflected in the base costs awarded. The court also considered the claimants' conduct, noting that they had made several requests for applications that were not proceeded with, which added some unnecessary administrative burden.

On the issue of interlocutory costs, the court dealt with SUM 3088, SUM 2727, and SUM 2728. For SUM 3088 (substituted service), the court awarded $1,000. For the joint hearing applications (SUM 2727 and SUM 2728), the court awarded $1,500 each. The court rejected the claimants' request for separate costs for "requests for applications" (the "Permission Costs"). Jimmy argued that these were merely administrative steps required under the Rules of Court 2021 to seek the court's permission before filing a formal application. The court agreed, stating at [38] that such work is generally administrative and should be subsumed within the costs of the substantive application or the general costs of the action. However, the court did allow a nominal sum of $5,000 in OC 56 and $1,000 in OC 192 to account for the work done on these requests, as they did involve some legal drafting and consideration.

Finally, the court reviewed the disbursements. The claimants sought $50,486.30 for OC 56 and $23,592.40 for OC 192. Jimmy did not raise significant objections to these amounts. The court found the disbursements to be reasonably incurred and awarded them in full. The court concluded by synthesizing these various factors—the separate identity of the suits, the Appendix G guidelines, the overlap discount, the conduct of the parties, and the interlocutory history—to arrive at the final figures.

What Was the Outcome?

The court ordered that the claimants were entitled to two separate sets of costs, but applied a discount to reflect the overlap between the two suits. The final orders were as follows:

In conclusion, I awarded to the claimants in OC 56 and OC 192 the following:

(a) OC 56: Party-and-party costs of $104,500, disbursements of $50,486.30, $1,500 for SUM 2727 and $5,000 for the requests for applications that were rejected or not proceeded with;

(b) OC 192: Party-and-party costs of $99,500, disbursements of $23,592.40, $1,500 for SUM 2728, and $1,000 for SUM 3088.

(at [42])

The breakdown of the party-and-party costs reflects the court's starting point within the Appendix G "Equity and Trusts" range ($110,000 for OC 56 and $105,000 for OC 192) after applying a 5% discount for overlap. The court noted that while the overlap was substantial, a 5% discount on each suit was appropriate given that the base figures already accounted for the fact that the suits were heard together. The specific award of $5,000 in OC 56 for "requests for applications" was a departure from the general rule that such costs are administrative, intended to compensate for the specific work done on multiple rejected or unproceeded requests in that suit.

The disbursements awarded were $50,486.30 for OC 56 and $23,592.40 for OC 192, totaling $74,078.70. These were awarded on a party-and-party basis. The interlocutory costs for the joint hearing applications (SUM 2727 and SUM 2728) were fixed at $1,500 each, while the substituted service application (SUM 3088) was fixed at $1,000. All sums were awarded in Singapore Dollars (SGD). No interest was specifically mentioned in the operative paragraph, but standard post-judgment interest would apply by operation of law. The defendant, Jimmy, is liable for these sums to the respective claimants in each suit.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is a significant authority for practitioners navigating the costs implications of the "heard together" procedural mechanism under the Rules of Court 2021. Its primary importance lies in the clear affirmation that unless suits are formally consolidated, they maintain their separate legal identities, which carries through to the entitlement to separate bills of costs. This distinction is not merely academic; it has substantial financial consequences for both successful claimants and unsuccessful defendants. By relying on the Wood v Farr Ford Ltd principles, the court has provided a robust framework for distinguishing between the "one action" result of consolidation and the "separate actions" result of a joint hearing.

For practitioners, the judgment highlights the strategic importance of the choice between consolidation and a joint hearing. While consolidation may be more efficient in terms of pleadings and discovery, it limits the successful party to a single set of costs. Conversely, a joint hearing allows for separate costs but invites judicial scrutiny regarding overlaps. The court’s application of a 5% discount in this case—despite the substantial factual overlap—suggests that the court will not automatically collapse two sets of costs into one, but will instead use a percentage-based discount to achieve a fair result. This provides a degree of predictability for cost budgeting in complex, multi-suit litigation.

The decision also clarifies the treatment of "Permission Costs" under the new procedural regime. The court’s characterization of requests for permission to file applications as "generally administrative" is a warning to practitioners that they should not expect separate, substantial cost awards for these preliminary steps. By subsuming these costs into the general costs of the action or the substantive application, the court is signaling a desire to prevent the fragmentation of costs and to keep the focus on the substantive legal work. The nominal award made in this case for such requests appears to be an exception based on the specific volume of requests, rather than a new general rule.

Furthermore, the court’s nuanced approach to witness conduct and cost uplifts is instructive. The finding that Jimmy was an "evasive and inconsistent" witness did not lead to a punitive uplift. Instead, the court maintained a focus on whether the conduct actually increased the costs of the litigation. This reinforces the principle that party-and-party costs are compensatory, not punitive. Practitioners should note that to secure a conduct-based uplift, they must demonstrate a direct link between the misconduct and the additional legal work or time required. Simply winning on credibility is insufficient to move the needle significantly on the quantum of costs.

Finally, the case demonstrates the court's willingness to engage in a detailed, line-item analysis of costs even when the parties are far apart in their submissions. By starting with the Appendix G ranges and then applying specific discounts and adjustments, Kwek Mean Luck J has provided a roadmap for how the "Equity and Trusts" category should be applied in trials of moderate length. The decision balances the need for proportionality with the recognition of the work required to prosecute separate, albeit related, claims to a successful conclusion.

Practice Pointers

• Distinguish Consolidation from Joint Hearings: When drafting applications or consent orders for multiple suits, clearly specify whether you are seeking "consolidation" (one action, one bill of costs) or that the actions be "heard together" (separate actions, separate bills of costs). The choice has significant implications for cost recovery.
• Document Overlapping Work: In joint hearings, maintain detailed time records that distinguish between work specific to one suit and work that benefits both. This will be crucial when arguing for or against a discount for overlap.
• Appendix G Benchmarking: Always frame costs submissions within the relevant category of Appendix G. If seeking the maximum amount, provide specific justifications such as unusual complexity, the volume of discovery, or the length of the trial.
• Manage "Permission" Requests: Be aware that the court views requests for permission to file applications as largely administrative. Avoid seeking separate costs for these unless the work involved was exceptionally onerous or the requests were numerous.
• Conduct and Costs: If seeking an uplift based on the opponent's conduct, focus on how that conduct (e.g., evasiveness, late disclosure) specifically increased the legal fees or protracted the trial. General allegations of poor conduct are rarely sufficient for a significant uplift.
• Interlocutory Costs "In the Cause": Remember that when costs are ordered to be "in the cause," they are generally determined at the end of the substantive proceedings. Ensure these are included in your final costs submissions with appropriate supporting arguments.
• Disbursements Scrutiny: While the court in this case accepted disbursements without much objection, practitioners should always be prepared to justify large disbursement items (e.g., expert fees, significant printing costs) with receipts and explanations of necessity.

Subsequent Treatment

As this is a recent judgment from February 2026, there is no recorded subsequent treatment in the extracted metadata. The decision stands as a current application of the Rules of Court 2021 and Appendix G guidelines regarding costs in joint hearings.

Legislation Referenced

• Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021
• Rules of Court 2021 (specifically O 9 r 11 and O 21 r 2 as referenced in the context of procedural applications)

Cases Cited

• Applied: [2023] SGCA 21 (How Weng Fan v Sengkang Town Council)
• Relied on: [2022] SGHC 161 (Ayaz Ahmed v Mustaq Ahmad)
• Considered: [2024] SGHC 84 (Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin and another suit)
• Distinguished: [2013] SGHC 144 (Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng and anor)
• Referred to: [2025] SGHC 236 (Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter)
• Referred to: [2023] 1 SLR 96 (Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd)
• Referred to: [2023] 2 SLR 614 (How Weng Fan and anor v Sengkang Town Council)
• Referred to: [2024] SGHC(I) 26 (Pertamina)
• Foreign Authority: Wood v Farr Ford Ltd [2008] OJ No 4092
• Foreign Authority: Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company [2020] ONSC 4609

Source Documents

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