Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHC 33
- Title: Tjiang Giok Moy & Anor v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Decision: 10 February 2026
- Originating Claims: Originating Claim No 56 of 2022 and Originating Claim No 192 of 2022
- Judges: Kwek Mean Luck J
- Parties:
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Tjiang Giok Moy and another (in OC 56)
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Banner (China) Investment Company Limited (in OC 192)
- Defendant/Respondent: Ang Jimmy Tjun Min
- Procedural Context: Costs decision following an earlier substantive decision in the same dispute (OC 56 and OC 192 tried together)
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure; Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (including O 9 r 11 and O 21 r 2(2)); Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (Appendix G)
- 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 costs judgment addresses how costs should be awarded where two High Court actions are tried together but are not consolidated. The dispute arose from two related claims between the same parties: (i) in OC 56, the claimants (Tjiang Giok Moy and Eileen Ang) sued Ang Jimmy Tjun Min for unauthorised withdrawals from a Citibank account; and (ii) in OC 192, Banner (China) Investment Company Limited sued Jimmy for the return of an advance made to him by the company. The substantive claims were tried together, and the court had already found in favour of the claimants on their substantive prayers.
The present decision concerns the quantum and structure of costs. The central issue was whether the claimants were entitled to “one set of costs” or “two sets of party-and-party costs” for OC 56 and OC 192. The defendant argued that the actions should be treated as effectively one consolidated matter because they were heard together, and that any work relating to permissions to file should be treated as administrative and not separately recoverable. The court held that OC 56 and OC 192 were not consolidated; they retained separate pleaded identities. Accordingly, the claimants were entitled to separate sets of costs, subject to appropriate adjustments to reflect overlap and savings from the joint hearing.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying litigation involved closely connected parties and corporate shareholding. In OC 56, Mrs Tjiang Giok Moy (referred to in the judgment as “Mrs Ang”) and her co-claimant, Ms Eileen Ang (“Eileen”), brought claims against Ang Jimmy Tjun Min (“Jimmy”) alleging unauthorised withdrawals from a Citibank account. The claimants and Jimmy were also shareholders of Banner (China) Investment Company Limited (“Banner”), which became relevant to the second action.
In OC 192, Banner sued Jimmy for the return of an advance made to him by the company. Although the two claims were distinct in their pleaded causes of action—one focused on unauthorised withdrawals from a bank account and the other on repayment of a corporate advance—they were factually and evidentially connected through the parties’ relationship and the shared corporate context.
Crucially, OC 56 and OC 192 were tried together. The court had earlier issued a substantive decision in which it found that the claimants succeeded in their substantive prayers and awarded costs to them. After trial, the parties were unable to agree on the quantum of costs. The dispute then narrowed to how costs should be structured and assessed: whether the claimants should receive separate costs for each originating claim, and whether certain categories of work (including work done for permissions to file applications) should be recoverable as part of party-and-party costs.
During the costs phase, the parties also disagreed on the procedural character of the joint trial. The claimants maintained that the actions were not consolidated; they were merely heard together. The defendant contended that the court’s order to have the matters heard together effectively treated them as one action for costs purposes. This procedural distinction became determinative for the “one set or two sets” question.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first and most significant legal issue was whether the claimants were entitled to one set of party-and-party costs or two sets of party-and-party costs for OC 56 and OC 192. This issue turned on whether the two actions were consolidated or merely tried together. Consolidation, as a procedural mechanism, changes the way pleadings, evidence, and judgments are treated, and it typically affects how costs are assessed and apportioned.
The second issue concerned the scope of recoverable costs. The claimants sought costs that included uplifts and also sought to recover costs for work done for permissions to file applications. The defendant argued that any work done for permissions to file was merely “administrative” and should not attract separate costs. This raised questions about the proper approach to party-and-party costs, including whether and how the court should treat interlocutory work and permissions-related work as part of recoverable costs.
Finally, even if two sets of costs were permissible, the court had to decide how to account for overlap and savings arising from the joint hearing. The court accepted that there were cost savings from the actions being heard together, and it therefore needed to determine the appropriate discount or adjustment to avoid double recovery for work that was genuinely overlapping.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by framing the costs decision as a continuation of its earlier substantive decision in the same dispute. It emphasised that the substantive issues had been dealt with in the earlier judgment, and that the present decision was confined to costs. The court then addressed the parties’ competing positions on whether there should be one set or two sets of costs.
On the “one set or two sets” issue, the court treated consolidation as the decisive procedural threshold. It relied on comparative and local authorities discussing the essential features of consolidation versus joint trial. In particular, it cited Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin and another suit [2024] SGHC 84, which in turn referred to Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company [2020] ONSC 4609. The court adopted the conceptual distinction articulated in those authorities: where actions are consolidated, they proceed as one action with one set of pleadings and one bill of costs; where actions are merely ordered to be tried together, they maintain separate identity with separate pleadings and separate judgments and bills of costs, even though evidence may be taken across actions to achieve efficiency.
The court also relied on the Court of Appeal’s observations in How Weng Fan v Sengkang Town Council [2023] SGCA 21. In that case, the Court of Appeal had observed that the suits were not consolidated but merely heard together, and that pleadings in one suit should not be conflated with those in the other. Applying that reasoning, the court in the present case examined the procedural history and the pleadings’ separate character.
Although the defendant argued that the actions were consolidated and tried as one action pursuant to an order dated 13 October 2023 (ORC 4897), the court found that OC 56 and OC 192 were not consolidated. The court noted that the parties continued to maintain two sets of pleadings throughout the proceedings. It further observed that counsel’s understanding at the hearing before the Assistant Registrar reflected that the claimants were not pursuing consolidation; they were seeking only that the two suits be heard together. The consent order also referred to the actions separately and stated that documents and evidence in one action would be used in both. There was also no order for one set of costs. The court distinguished Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng and anor [2013] SGHC 144, where the two cases were expressly identified as consolidated.
Accordingly, the court held that the claimants were not precluded from claiming two sets of costs. However, it accepted the defendant’s point that there were savings from the joint hearing. The court therefore treated overlap and savings as relevant to the quantum and discounting of costs rather than as a reason to collapse the two bills of costs into one.
Turning to party-and-party costs, the court applied the framework in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. Appendix G provides indicative ranges for costs in categories such as equity and trusts, including pre-trial work, trial work per day, and post-trial work. The claimants’ submissions proposed specific figures for each stage and included uplifts. For OC 56, Mrs Ang and Eileen sought party-and-party costs of $198,000 (excluding disbursements) and disbursements of $50,486.30, while for OC 192, Banner sought party-and-party costs of $177,000 (excluding disbursements) and disbursements of $23,592.40. The claimants’ proposed figures included uplifts intended to reflect Jimmy’s alleged unreasonable and improper conduct.
The court then considered the basis for uplifts. The claimants relied on O 21 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court 2021, which requires the court, in fixing costs, to have regard to all relevant circumstances, including the conduct of parties. They argued that Jimmy’s conduct protracted the proceedings and caused unnecessary time and costs, and they pointed to findings that Jimmy was evasive and inconsistent as a witness. The court also considered the factual complexity of the matters, including the age of some allegations (dating back to 1992) and the volume of disclosed documents (approximately 2,200 pages). These factors were relevant to assessing the appropriate level of effort and therefore the baseline costs.
On overlap, the court accepted that there was some overlap because the actions were heard together and evidence in one action could be used in the other. The claimants, however, submitted that there was no overlap in the sense that the claims and issues were dealt with in discrete sections of the pleadings and written submissions. The court’s approach therefore required a nuanced assessment: separate sets of costs were permissible, but the court would adjust the quantum to reflect efficiencies and avoid double counting for genuinely overlapping work.
Finally, the court addressed the defendant’s argument that work done for permissions to file applications should be treated as administrative and not separately recoverable. While the truncated extract does not reproduce the court’s full treatment of this point, the issue itself indicates the court’s attention to the proper scope of party-and-party costs and the distinction between recoverable legal work and non-recoverable administrative steps. In costs jurisprudence, the recoverability of such work typically depends on whether it was reasonably necessary for the conduct of the case and whether it falls within the categories of work that party-and-party costs are meant to reimburse.
What Was the Outcome?
The court held that OC 56 and OC 192 were not consolidated and therefore the claimants were entitled to two sets of party-and-party costs. This resolved the principal structural dispute between the parties. The court also accepted that there were savings from the joint hearing, and it therefore adjusted the costs assessment to account for overlap and efficiencies rather than eliminating separate costs altogether.
In practical terms, the decision means that where two actions retain separate pleaded identities and are merely heard together, a successful claimant may recover separate bills of costs for each action. However, the quantum of those costs may be discounted to reflect the extent of shared evidence and procedural efficiencies.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how Singapore courts approach costs where multiple actions are tried together. The judgment reinforces that consolidation is not inferred merely because matters are heard together. Instead, the court will look to the procedural history and the continued separate identity of pleadings and proceedings. This is particularly important for litigators managing multi-action disputes involving the same parties and overlapping evidence.
From a precedent perspective, the case provides a structured application of the consolidation-versus-joint-trial distinction, drawing on How Weng Fan and Hyflux. It also demonstrates how courts operationalise these principles in the costs context: separate pleaded cases generally support separate costs, but overlap and savings remain relevant to the quantum. This helps lawyers forecast outcomes when negotiating costs after a joint trial.
For cost submissions, the decision also highlights the need for careful categorisation of work and a defensible approach to uplifts. Where a claimant seeks uplifts based on conduct, the submissions must connect the alleged conduct to unnecessary protraction and to the court’s findings. Similarly, where a claimant seeks to recover costs for permissions-related work, the claimant must show that such work was reasonably necessary and not merely administrative.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (Singapore): O 9 r 11
- Rules of Court 2021 (Singapore): O 21 r 2(2)
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021: Appendix G
Cases Cited
- Ayaz Ahmed v Mustaq Ahmad [2022] SGHC 161
- Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng and anor [2013] SGHC 144
- How Weng Fan v Sengkang Town Council [2023] SGCA 21
- Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin and another suit [2024] SGHC 84
- Tjiang Giok Moy and another v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min and another matter [2025] SGHC 236
- Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company [2020] ONSC 4609
- Wood v Farr Ford Ltd [2008] OJ No 4092
- Tjiang Giok Moy v Ang Jimmy Tjun Min [2026] SGHC 33
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.