Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC(I) 7
- Title: W. Power Group EOOD v Mingyang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd
- Court: Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC)
- Originating Application No: Originating Application No 2 of 2023
- Summons No: Summons No 15 of 2024
- Judgment Date(s): 28 May 2024; 26 November 2024; 11 March 2025
- Judge: Thomas Bathurst IJ
- Hearing: Judgment without an oral hearing
- Plaintiff/Applicant (Claimant): W. Power Group EOOD
- Defendant/Respondent: Mingyang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs — Scales
- Procedural Posture: Costs assessment following earlier striking out/dismissal of the claimant’s action
- Judgment Length: 17 pages, 4,075 words
- Key Context: Costs split into pre-transfer and post-transfer periods after transfer from the General Division of the High Court to the SICC
Summary
This decision concerns the assessment of costs in the SICC following the dismissal of W. Power Group EOOD’s claim against Mingyang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd. The court had earlier, by judgment dated 15 October 2024 ([2024] SGHC(I) 29), struck out W Power’s Statement of Claim, refused leave to amend, dismissed the claim in its entirety, and ordered W Power to pay Mingyang’s costs. The present judgment addresses the quantum of those costs, with particular focus on how the court should apply the “costs scales” and the relevant principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
The court treated pre-transfer and post-transfer costs separately. For pre-transfer costs (incurred while the matter was in the General Division of the High Court), the court treated Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 as the starting point, while allowing an uplift to reflect the case’s specific features. For post-transfer costs (incurred after transfer to the SICC), the court applied the SICC Rules’ framework for costs discretion, including the statutory-like guidance on proportionality and reasonableness, and scrutinised the components claimed—especially those connected to the strike out and amendment applications.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute was commenced in the General Division of the High Court in June 2022 (HC/OC 85/2022). The proceedings were later transferred to the SICC by an order of the Registrar dated 7 March 2023. Importantly for the costs analysis, the transfer order also directed that the costs scale in the General Division of the High Court and Order 21 of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC) were to continue to apply to the assessment of costs incurred before the transfer to the SICC.
After transfer, the claimant (W Power) pursued its claim until the SICC struck out the Statement of Claim. In the earlier judgment dated 15 October 2024 ([2024] SGHC(I) 29), the court refused W Power’s application for leave to file an amended Statement of Claim, dismissed the claim in its entirety, and ordered W Power to pay Mingyang’s costs. The present decision therefore does not revisit liability; it focuses solely on the quantum of costs payable by W Power to Mingyang.
When the parties could not agree on the costs quantum within the time directed, they filed submissions and schedules. Mingyang claimed a total of $226,240 for costs, broken down into $54,285 for the pre-transfer period and $171,955 for the post-transfer period. In addition, Mingyang claimed foreign counsel fees and disbursements: RMB104,606.50 (with RMB99,154.50 said to be pre-transfer and RMB5,452 post-transfer) and €7,240 for Bulgarian counsel’s fees (with €6,640 pre-transfer and €600 post-transfer). Mingyang also claimed disbursements of $10,189.80.
The court then proceeded to assess pre-transfer costs and post-transfer costs separately. For pre-transfer costs, the court examined the work described in Mingyang’s schedule—reviewing pleadings and preparing the defence, and preparing for and attending pre-trial conferences and case management conferences. For post-transfer costs, the court broke the claim into components, including case management work, particulars requests, costs awarded for security of costs (including interest), a request to register Malaysian co-counsel, and—most significantly—costs incurred in relation to Mingyang’s strike out application and W Power’s application for leave to amend (SIC/SUM 15/2024 (“SUM 15”)).
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was how the court should assess pre-transfer costs in light of the costs scales. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 should be applied as a starting point, and if so, whether the circumstances justified an uplift beyond the Appendix G range for costs settled at the pleading stage.
The second key issue was how the court should assess post-transfer costs under the SICC Rules, including the approach to proportionality and reasonableness. This required the court to consider the relevant factors in the SICC Rules (notably O 22 rr 3(1)–(2) as referenced in the judgment), and to decide whether particular claimed components were recoverable and in what amount.
A further issue—intertwined with both pre- and post-transfer assessment—was the treatment of foreign counsel fees and other disbursements. The court had to decide, in principle and in quantum, whether and to what extent foreign counsel costs should be allowed, and how to allocate them between pre-transfer and post-transfer periods.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the governing approach to costs assessment and the role of the costs scales. It relied on the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96 (“Kiri Industries (CA)”). In that case, the Court of Appeal emphasised that costs are assessed at a level enabling a litigant with reasonable merits to pursue justice, applying an objective standard shaped by what a successful party ought to recover for the particular work done, rather than what was actually incurred. The court also noted that access to justice considerations require tailoring to the case’s attributes, but that Appendix G’s effect generally keeps recoverable costs within the range set out therein.
Against that backdrop, the SICC judge adopted the approach already taken in earlier SICC decisions: Appendix G is the starting point for pre-transfer costs, but the court may uplift where the complexity and circumstances justify it. The judge expressly indicated that this approach was consistent with the SICC’s earlier reasoning in Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2022] 3 SLR 174 (“Kiri Industries (SICC)”), and with other authorities such as CBX and another v CBZ and others [2022] 1 SLR 88 (“CBX”). The court therefore treated the costs scales not as rigid tariffs, but as structured guidance subject to principled adjustment.
Turning to pre-transfer costs, the court identified the Appendix G range for matters settled at the pleading stage as between $5,000 and $14,000. Mingyang argued for a higher assessment, pointing to factors such as complexity (including Bulgarian regulations and the approval/connection process for a wind-powered plant), the need to investigate events from ten years earlier, and the involvement of Bulgarian counsel. Mingyang also argued that its pre-transfer work was not limited to pleadings and included preparation for and attendance at four case management conferences. It further contended that W Power’s offer of $10,000 was unreasonable compared to the effort expended.
W Power, by contrast, submitted that the case did not proceed beyond pleadings and that Appendix G should govern, with $10,000 being the appropriate amount. It relied on CBX and Kiri Industries (SICC) to argue that departure from Appendix G requires compelling justification. W Power also criticised Mingyang’s reasons for departure as insufficient, including that the claim was a breach of contract claim, the matter stopped at the pleading stage, and Mingyang’s mediation stance was not sincere. W Power further argued that the costs claimed were not reasonable and proportionate.
In resolving this, the court accepted that multiple features justified an uplift. First, the amount claimed was substantial. Second, the claim related to events occurring ten years earlier and required investigation of Bulgarian regulations relevant to wind power plants at that time. Third, the work involved instructing and liaising with Bulgarian counsel. Fourth, even though the case did not go beyond pleadings, it required preparation for and attendance at four case management hearings. On that basis, the court considered a 50% uplift on the maximum Appendix G amount appropriate. The judge therefore awarded $21,000 for pre-transfer costs.
For post-transfer costs, the court proceeded to assess the claimed components. It noted that Mingyang’s costs schedule set out hourly rates, but those rates were not challenged as unreasonable. The court also indicated that the relevant matters for exercising the costs discretion were those in the SICC Rules (O 22 rr 3(1)–(2)), which provide that a successful party is generally entitled to costs reflecting costs incurred, subject to proportionality and reasonableness, and that proportionality and reasonableness may take into account complexity, difficulty/novelty, skill and responsibility, and time spent, among other circumstances.
The court then identified five components of post-transfer costs (excluding foreign counsel fees). These included: (1) $30,665 for preparation of case management documents and attendance at case management conferences; (2) $17,395 for preparation and issue of requests for particulars and preparation/serving of particulars of the defence; (3) $6,317.17 for costs awarded on the security of costs application (including interest), which was not disputed; (4) $1,895 relating to W Power’s request to register a Malaysian lawyer as co-counsel; and (5) $121,910 for costs incurred in relation to Mingyang’s strike out application and W Power’s application for leave to amend (SUM 15). The judgment extract indicates that the court would scrutinise these components, particularly the large strike out/amendment-related costs, through the lens of proportionality and reasonableness.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the reasoning, the structure of the decision makes clear that the court’s analysis was component-based: it separated routine case management and particulars work from the more contentious procedural applications, and it treated the security of costs component as settled. The court’s approach reflects a common SICC methodology: accept uncontroversial items, but apply a disciplined review to contested or potentially disproportionate items, ensuring that the final costs award aligns with what a successful party should recover for the work done in the circumstances.
What Was the Outcome?
The court awarded Mingyang $21,000 for pre-transfer costs, applying Appendix G as the starting point and granting a 50% uplift on the maximum Appendix G amount to reflect the case’s specific features, including the Bulgarian regulatory investigation, involvement of foreign counsel, and the need for multiple case management hearings despite the case stopping at pleadings.
For post-transfer costs, the court assessed the claimed components under the SICC Rules’ proportionality and reasonableness framework. While the extract does not reproduce the final numerical totals for each post-transfer component, the outcome was that W Power remained liable for Mingyang’s costs, with the court determining the recoverable quantum by scrutinising the claimed items—particularly the large costs associated with the strike out and amendment applications.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is practically important for litigators because it clarifies how the SICC will treat costs scales when a case is transferred from the General Division of the High Court. The court’s explicit endorsement of Appendix G as a starting point for pre-transfer costs, coupled with a principled uplift where justified, provides a predictable framework for cost budgeting and for disputes about recoverable amounts.
From a doctrinal perspective, the judgment reinforces the Court of Appeal’s access-to-justice and objective-standard approach to costs assessment in Kiri Industries (CA). The SICC’s reasoning underscores that recoverable costs are not simply a reimbursement of actual expenditure. Instead, the court asks what a successful party ought to recover for the work done, shaped by proportionality and reasonableness, while still recognising that the costs scales are designed to accommodate typical variations.
For practitioners, the decision also highlights the evidential and analytical significance of explaining why costs exceed the scale. Mingyang’s success on pre-transfer costs depended on demonstrating concrete case-specific factors: the ten-year historical factual matrix, the need to investigate Bulgarian regulatory processes, and the involvement of foreign counsel, as well as the procedural reality of multiple case management hearings. Conversely, W Power’s reliance on the “compelling justification” threshold shows how parties should frame arguments when seeking to keep costs within the Appendix G range.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC), Order 21
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Appendix G
- Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (SICC Rules), O 22 rr 3(1)–(2)
Cases Cited
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96 (“Kiri Industries (CA)”)
- Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2022] 3 SLR 174 (“Kiri Industries (SICC)”)
- CBX and another v CBZ and others [2022] 1 SLR 88 (“CBX”)
- DBX and another v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCI 7 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.