Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Valerie Thean J |
Judgment Date | 22 July 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC 140 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 26 of 2016 |
Year | 2020 |
Published date | 25 July 2020 |
Hearing Date | 30 March 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Alvin Yeo SC, Daniel Chan, Vivian Seah, Daryl Kwok (WongPartnership LLP) (instructed), Chan Kwok Chuan Jason, Pang Sze Ray Melvin, Nicholas Tong Wei Jie and Ong Eu Jin (Amica Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Tony Yeo Soo Mong, Meryl Koh Junning, Yeo Javier, Chiew Jing Yi and Loo Fang Hui (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Costs,Principles |
Citation | [2020] SGHC 140 |
These grounds of decision deal with costs for
I highlight here the key facts relevant to the issue of costs. The plaintiff (“E6”), incorporated in the United Kingdom (“UK”), designs, develops, and manufactures synthetic diamond products. E6 owns Singapore Patent No 115872 (“SG 872”) and Singapore Patent No 110508 (“SG 508”). The first is a patent for the manufacture of synthetic diamond using chemical vapour deposition (“CVD”); the second is a patent to convert a coloured single crystal CVD diamond to another colour under suitable heat treatment conditions, a process referred to as annealing. The defendant (“IIa”), a Singapore company, deals in the manufacture of CVD diamond products and the colour treatment of diamonds. E6 contended that three Samples (referred to as “Sample 2”, “Sample 3”, and “Sample 4” respectively, and collectively as the “Samples”) that originated from IIa infringed SG 872. Samples 2 and 4 were CVD diamond optical applications, while Sample 3 was a pink CVD diamond gemstone, which E6 contended infringed SG 508 as well. IIa’s response was a threefold denial: first, it denied that the Samples originated from them; second, even if they did, the Samples were manufactured using IIa’s confidential process; and third, it counterclaimed that SG 872 and SG 508 were invalid.
In the Judgment, I found that IIa was responsible for manufacturing all three Samples. On the counterclaim for revocation, I found that SG 872 was valid while SG 508 was not. IIa’s confidential process did not withstand scrutiny. E6 was able to show that IIa had used SG 872 to manufacture the Samples, while the result on SG 508 was not conclusive in view of my finding as to its anticipation by prior art. Therefore, infringement was made out on SG 872 while the invalidity of SG 508 functioned as a defence to any infringement of SG 508.
IIa’s offer to settle I consider IIa’s offer to settle (“OTS”) as a preliminary matter. IIa contended that O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”) applied on the basis of the OTS it served on E6 on 3 March 2017. The material terms of the OTS are as follows:1
In order for the costs implications under O 22A r 9 of the ROC to follow, a valid OTS must be an offer to settle that has “some semblance of reasonableness”:
In my view, IIa’s OTS was not a serious nor genuine offer aimed at compromise. The substance of the OTS was for E6 to cease its claim entirely, on the basis that IIa would not pursue its defence and counterclaim to revoke the patents which E6 was claiming IIa had infringed. Tongue-in-cheek, it offered a return to the
Further, even if the OTS was an offer within the bounds of O 22A, in order for O 22A r 9(3) to apply, the defendant must show that “the plaintiff [has obtained] judgment not more favourable than the terms of the offer to settle”: O 22A r 9(3)(
First, IIa argued that if E6 had agreed to the OTS, E6 would have kept both SG 508
Second, IIa argued that if E6 had accepted the OTS, it would only have had to pay IIa’s costs from 3 March 2017 up to the date of acceptance. IIa cited Chan Sek Keong CJ’s decision in
IIa’s OTS was, therefore, irrelevant to the issue of costs.
Costs of the suit E6 won on all issues save for the validity of SG 508. It relied on the adopted by the Court of Appeal in
IIa, on the other hand, advocated an issue-based approach. While it asked for “a single costs order”, premised on its having won the validity argument on SG 508, it first contended in its written submissions that it should obtain 50% of its costs,3 then in oral argument contended that costs should be apportioned in equal parts between E6 and itself, with each side paying 50% of the costs to the other. At a point, it appeared to suggest, taking the two suggestions into consideration, that no order on costs should be made at all.4
I held that E6 should receive costs of the whole action on the standard basis. My decision may be explained by reference to these issues, which are related:
E6 argued that costs should follow the event and, as the overall successful party in this part of S 26/2016, it should be awarded its costs in the suit so far. This argument was based on the principles summarised in
… The principles on which costs were to be awarded were (i) that costs were in the discretion of the court, (ii) that costs should follow the event except when it appeared to the court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made, (iii)
that the general rule did not cease to apply simply because the successful party raised issues or made allegations that failed, but that he could be deprived of his costs in whole or in part where he had caused a significant increase in the length of the proceedings , and (iv) that where the successful party raised issues or made allegations improperly or unreasonably the court could not only deprive him of his costs but could also order him to pay the whole or part of the unsuccessful party’s costs. The fourth principle implied, moreover, thata successful party who neither improperly nor unreasonably raised issues or made allegations which failed ought not to be ordered to pay any part of the unsuccessful party’s costs … [emphasis added]
E6 recognised that it had, however, failed in terms of the validity of SG 508, and conceded that it could be deprived of its costs in relation to that issue, and it proposed a 15% discount accordingly. This was consistent with the third principle stated in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd v PT Bayan Resources TBK
...EFG Bank AG, Singapore Branch v Surewin Worldwide Ltd [2022] SGHC 26 (refd) Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 140 (refd) Elgindata Ltd (No 2), Re [1993] 1 All ER 232 (refd) English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 (refd) Filipovic v Upshall [......
-
Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd
...Engineering Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 165 (refd) Cutts v Head [1984] 2 WLR 349 (refd) Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 140 (distd) Elgindata Ltd (No 2), Re [1992] 1 WLR 1207 (folld) English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 (refd) Fox v Foundation ......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another
...v Riduan bin Yusof and another [2005] 1 SLR(R) 130 (“Khng Thian Huat”) at [19]; Element Six Technologies Ltd v Ila Technologies Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 140 (“Element Six”) at [19]; Summit Property Ltd v Pitmans (a firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 2020 at [27]). Such an approach has typically been applied ......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another
...since they would expect to recover all their costs so long as they won: see Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd [2020] SGHC 140 (“Element Six”) at [29]; Phonographic at 1522–1523. The CPR 1999 introduced r 44.3, which ushered in a sea-change in attitudes towards costs. I......