Bannerji HL v Chin Cheng Realty (Pte) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1985
• Date: 09 October 1985
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 52 of 1982
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Bannerji H L

Plaintiff

and

Chin Cheng Realty (Pte) Ltd

Defendant

[1985] SGHC 30

Lai Kew Chai J

Civil Appeal No 52 of 1982

High Court

Civil Procedure–Costs–Taxation–Rules of Court introducing new scale of costs–Whether new scale of costs applicable to taxing costs of work done prior to amendments to Rules of Court–Order 59 r 31 (1) Appendix I The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The plaintiffs were awarded costs against the defendants in relation to a series of contentious applications spanning a period both before and after 1 December 1982. Amendments to the Rules of Court introduced a new scale of costs that came into effect on 1 December 1982. At the taxation hearing for the costs to be awarded against the defendants, the defendants argued that the bill of costs should have been drawn on the old and new scales of costs in such a way as to reflect work done before the amendments came into place. The Deputy Registrar agreed with the defendants and ordered that the bills be redrawn. The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The resolution of the question turned upon the construction of O 59 r 31 (1) (“the principal rule”) of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“the 1970 Rules”) as amended by r 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Act 1982 under which the scale of costs in Appendix I of the 1970 Rules was deleted and a new scale of costs was substituted therefor: at [7].

(2) The amendments only substituted a new scale of costs and left the principal rule completely unaltered. Two propositions should be quite clear and beyond controversy: firstly, the new scale of costs on and after 1 December 1982 should apply to the taxation of all costs; and secondly, the costs shall be all costs “incurred in relation to contentious business done on or after the coming into force of these Rules”, that is, in relation to contentious business done on or after 2 January 1971: at [13].

(3) On a true and natural construction of the principal rule, the new scale of costs would have to be applied on a taxation of costs coming up for consideration on and after 1 December 1982 to all contentious business done on or after 2 January 1971: at [18].

Chia Shih Ching James v Law Society of Singapore [1985-1986] SLR (R) 209; [1984-1985] SLR 53 (folld)

Direct United States Cable Co Ltd, The v The Anglo-American Telegraph Co Ltd (1877) 2 App Cas 394 (folld)

Moh Seng Realty (Pte) Ltd v Bannerji H L [1985-1986] SLR (R) 296; [1984-1985] SLR 79 (folld)

Warburton v Loveland (1832) 2 Dow & Cl 480; 6 ER 806 (folld)

Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) 1982 (GN No S 304/1982)rr 1, 11

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 59r 31 (1) Appendix 1 (consd)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15, 1970 Rev Ed)s 80

L A J Smith (L A J Smith) for the appellant

Giam Chin Toon (Wee Swee Teow & Co) for the respondent.

Lai Kew Chai J

1 The taxation of the three bills of costs arose out of the following proceedings in respect of which contentious business was done before the first day of December 1982 as well as on and after that date. Under a lease dated 23 July 1957 the plaintiff as lessee was granted a lease over the premises known as 322-F Changi Road, Singapore. A dispute arose over the amount of the rent payable under the lease and whether, in all the circumstances, the lease was renewable. The plaintiff asserted that it was but the defendants contended otherwise and sought possession. On 27 July 1977 the plaintiff filed a writ of summons in the High Court for specific performance of the covenant to renew the lease. Two months later, for some unknown reason, the defendants commenced an action in the District Court claiming possession of the premises. By Originating Summons No 416 of 1977 filed in the High Court in January 1978 the plaintiff obtained an order transferring the District Court action to the High Court and an order consolidating them for trial. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

2 After...