Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 267
- Title: WISH CONTROLS PTE. LTD. v TRIDENT WATER SYSTEMS PTE. LTD.
- Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Originating Claim No: 479 of 2024
- Decision Type: Costs judgment (following earlier merits judgment)
- Judgment Date(s): 28 October 2025; 29 December 2025 (judgment delivered on costs); 31 December 2025 (version date)
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wish Controls Pte Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd
- Counterclaim: Yes (Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd as claimant in counterclaim; Wish Controls Pte Ltd as defendant in counterclaim)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (O 21 r 2(5))
- Key Practice Direction Referenced: Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (“PD”), Appendix G (Guidelines for Party-and-Party Costs Awards in the Supreme Court of Singapore)
- Related Merits Judgment: Wish Controls Pte Ltd v Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 256
- Judgment Length: 4 pages; 842 words
- Counsel: Ranjit Singh (Francis Khoo & Lim) for the claimant; Gerard Quek Wen Jiang and Glenn Chua Ze Xuan (PDLegal LLC) for the defendant
Summary
This High Court decision concerns the assessment of costs following a prior merits judgment between Wish Controls Pte Ltd and Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd. The court had already determined the substantive liability issues in Wish Controls Pte Ltd v Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 256. In the present judgment ([2025] SGHC 267), Choo Han Teck J dealt exclusively with costs, including the appropriate allocation of party-and-party costs in light of partial success in a counterclaim and the award of only nominal damages for proven breaches.
On the merits, the claimant (Wish Controls) succeeded in full in the main action and obtained substantial damages. The defendant (Trident Water Systems) succeeded only partially in its counterclaim: three out of eight alleged breaches were proven, but no damage was established, resulting in nominal damages of $1,000 per breach (and $3,000 in total). The court then applied the general principle that costs follow the event, adjusted for relative success, and used the Supreme Court Practice Directions cost guidelines to fix the main action costs at $80,000 plus disbursements of $6,418.25.
For the counterclaim, the court rejected both parties’ proposed approaches. It held that costs should reflect that Trident proved a legal wrong independent of quantum, even though only nominal damages were awarded. Ultimately, the court fixed nominal all-in costs for the counterclaim at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements. Exercising the set-off power under O 21 r 2(5) of the Rules of Court 2021, the court ordered that the net payable amount be set off so that Trident pay Wish $80,418.25 all-in.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute arose out of a commercial relationship between Wish Controls Pte Ltd and Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd. While the present judgment is limited to costs, it expressly relies on the court’s earlier findings on liability and damages in Wish Controls Pte Ltd v Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 256. In that earlier decision, the court allowed Wish’s claim in its entirety, meaning that Wish was found to have established its case on the main action and was awarded substantial monetary relief.
In the main action, the court ordered Trident to pay Wish $522,747.54 together with interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the originating claim to the date of judgment. This indicates that the court found significant wrongdoing or breach on Trident’s part (or otherwise found in favour of Wish on the pleaded causes of action), and that Wish’s entitlement was not merely technical or nominal.
Trident also brought a counterclaim against Wish. The counterclaim alleged eight instances of breach by Wish. However, in the merits judgment, counsel for Trident was only able to prove three of those alleged breaches. Importantly, although the court found that Wish committed breaches sufficient to establish a legal wrong, Trident failed to prove any damage arising from those breaches. As a result, the court awarded nominal damages at $1,000 per breach, totalling $3,000 for the three proven breaches.
The costs dispute therefore turned on how to reflect (i) Wish’s complete success in the main action, (ii) Trident’s partial success in proving breaches in the counterclaim, and (iii) the absence of proven loss or damage for those breaches. The court’s task was not to revisit liability or damages, but to determine the appropriate costs allocation and quantum in a manner consistent with the Rules of Court 2021 and the Supreme Court Practice Directions cost guidelines.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was the proper application of the general principle that costs follow the event, and how to adjust costs where there is mixed or partial success. Although Wish succeeded in the main action, Trident succeeded in part in its counterclaim. The court had to decide how to reflect this relative success in the overall costs order, rather than awarding costs mechanically on a “winner takes all” basis.
The second issue concerned the effect of nominal damages on costs. Trident’s counterclaim succeeded only in establishing breaches without proving damage. The court had to determine whether, and to what extent, Trident’s success should translate into a costs award, given that the monetary outcome was nominal and the practical significance of the counterclaim might appear limited.
Third, the court had to determine the correct costs quantum for the main action by reference to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 cost guidelines (Appendix G). The claimant sought $98,000 plus disbursements, but the court identified an error in the trial tariff calculation (the trial lasted one day, not three). The court therefore had to decide what range and point within the guideline range was appropriate given the complexity and duration of the trial.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Choo Han Teck J began by situating the costs assessment within the context of the earlier merits judgment. The court emphasised that the present decision was on costs only, and it therefore accepted the merits findings: Wish’s full success in the main action, Trident’s partial success in the counterclaim, and the award of nominal damages due to the failure to prove damage. This approach reflects a disciplined costs methodology: costs are assessed based on the litigation outcome and the parties’ relative success, not by re-litigating liability.
On the main action, the court applied the general principle that costs follow the event, but with an adjustment to reflect relative success. The court accepted Wish’s submission that guidance should be taken from the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Appendix G. The relevant guideline ranges for commercial claims were set out in the judgment: pre-trial costs of $25,000–$90,000, trial costs on a daily tariff of $6,000–$16,000, and post-trial work up to $30,000. The claimant’s request of $98,000 plus disbursements was not accepted because counsel had incorrectly assumed a three-day trial tariff.
Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that the trial issues were reasonably complex and that a fair number of documents were referred to. The court therefore did not simply apply the lowest end of the guideline range. Instead, it selected a point around the middle of the guideline range as a fair reflection of the work done and the complexity of the matter. This resulted in an order that Trident pay Wish costs of $80,000 plus disbursements of $6,418.25 for the main action.
The counterclaim analysis required a more nuanced approach because both parties advanced positions that the court considered untenable. Wish argued that no costs should be awarded to Trident because only nominal damages were awarded. The court disagreed. It held that Trident had succeeded in proving a legal wrong independent of the quantum ultimately ordered. In other words, the absence of proven damage did not erase the fact that the counterclaim established breach. Costs, the court reasoned, should reflect that success.
Trident, for its part, argued that its partial success should be reflected by a 25% discount to the costs ordered in the main action. The court rejected this as untenable. The judge explained that, in the merits judgment, the court had found that Sato (the relevant contracting party or individual referenced in the merits reasoning) terminated Trident’s contract by no fault on the part of Wish. This undermined Trident’s attempt to link the counterclaim breaches to a causal narrative that would justify a substantial discount. Moreover, Trident’s counterclaim success was limited: only three of eight alleged breaches were proven, and even then no damage was proved. Thus, while some costs were warranted to reflect the proven breaches, the court considered that the appropriate award should be modest.
Accordingly, the court fixed nominal costs for the counterclaim at $6,000 all-in, inclusive of disbursements. This figure operationalised the court’s balancing exercise: it recognised Trident’s success in establishing breach, but it did not treat the counterclaim as a major driver of the litigation outcome given the lack of damages and the limited proportion of breaches proven.
Finally, the court addressed the mechanics of costs payment where both parties have costs entitlements. Pursuant to O 21 r 2(5) of the Rules of Court 2021, the court has power to order set-off of costs so that only the balance is payable. The court exercised this power. It ordered that, after set-off, Trident pay Wish the net amount of $80,418.25 all-in. This ensured that the costs order was efficient and reflected the net economic effect of the parties’ respective successes.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that Trident pay Wish costs of $80,000 plus disbursements of $6,418.25 for the main action. In addition, for the counterclaim, the court ordered that Wish pay Trident nominal costs of $6,000 all-in inclusive of disbursements. The court then applied set-off under O 21 r 2(5) of the Rules of Court 2021.
As a result of the set-off, the net order was that Trident pay Wish $80,418.25 all-in. Practically, this means Wish recovered the bulk of its costs despite the counterclaim success, because Wish’s main action success was complete and the counterclaim produced only nominal damages without proof of loss.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This costs decision is useful for practitioners because it demonstrates how Singapore courts approach costs where there is mixed success across a main claim and a counterclaim, particularly when the counterclaim yields nominal damages. The judgment reinforces that “nominal” does not necessarily mean “costs-free.” Where a party proves a legal wrong, the court may award costs to reflect that success even if the monetary recovery is minimal due to failure to prove damage.
At the same time, the decision illustrates that the quantum of costs awarded for a counterclaim will be constrained by the practical significance of the counterclaim’s outcome. Here, Trident proved only three breaches out of eight and could not establish any damage. Those factors justified a modest, nominal costs award rather than a substantial discount to the main action costs. The court’s reasoning shows that costs are calibrated to relative success and litigation impact, not merely to whether a breach was technically established.
From a procedural and advocacy perspective, the judgment also highlights the importance of accurate application of the Supreme Court Practice Directions cost guidelines. The claimant’s costs claim was reduced because counsel incorrectly assumed a three-day trial tariff. While the court still selected a middle-range figure due to complexity, the correction underscores that costs submissions must align with the actual trial duration and the guideline structure. Finally, the set-off approach under O 21 r 2(5) provides a practical template for how courts can reconcile competing costs entitlements into a single net payment order.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (O 21 r 2(5))
Cases Cited
- Wish Controls Pte Ltd v Trident Water Systems Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 256 (merits judgment referred to for findings on liability and damages)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 267 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.