Fuyawa Enterprise Pte Ltd v Lim Han Tee trading as Wifu Marketing

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 06 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 300
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 26 October 2006
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chew Kherk Ying, Yee Kwok Hon (Bih Li & Lee) and Steven Loke (Loke & Seah)
• Defendant Counsel: Dedar Singh Gill and Richard Choong (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 300

06 January 1996

Choo Han Teck JC

The Plaintiffs in this action sold and distributed certain health food products under the name of "Forever Blissful" or "YongFu" in Chinese. The action against the Defendant was based on passing off. Trial commenced on 25 September 1995 before me but was adjourned to 30 October 1995 for the parties to amend their pleadings. On the seventh day of trial, which fell on 3 November 1995, counsel for the Defendant stated that the Defendant will accept the Plaintiffs' written offer to settle which was dated 23 September 1995. The proceedings thereafter were relatively short and I recorded a consent judgment against the Defendant. The full notes of the evidence of the 3 November 1995 are as follows:

"Singh: Defendant accepts offer to settle made by Plaintiffs on 23.9.95.

Chew : Apply to delete para 8(b) of Statement of Claim.

Clause 2 option not settled and may ask court to decide.

Singh : Plaintiffs are electing for account of profits

Paragraph 3 -no order as to costs

Paragraph 5 - taxed

Court : By consent

1. an injunction in terms of draft

2. Defendant do give an account of profits together with interest

3. Paragraph 8(b) of the Statement of Claim be deleted with no order as to costs

4. Counterclaim be withdrawn

5. Costs of this action and the counterclaim to plaintiff to be agreed or taxed

6. Taxation of costs to be deferred till after the inquiry on the account of profits

7. Liberty to apply

8. Inquiry to be before the Registrar

9. Costs of the application to amend the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim to Defendant in SIC 5959/95 fixed at $1,200

10. No order on costs of adjournment

11. Costs of Defendant's application under SIC 5790/95 to Plaintiffs fix at $300"

Subsequently, on 4 December 1995 the Defendant asked for a clarification of my orders of 3 November 1995 on the ground that he reads order 5 "costs of this action and the counter-claim to Plaintiff to be agreed or taxed" to mean costs as at 23 September 1995 when the offer to settle was dated. His contention was that paragraph 5 of the letter of offer stated that,

"the Defendant will bear taxed costs of the Plaintiffs' claim and the Defendant's counterclaim which the Plaintiffs are entitled to of this matter to-date" (my emphasis).

Hence, he claims that the order for costs should be for costs up to 23 September 1995. I ruled that my order was for costs up to 3 November 1995. Mr Singh for the Defendant as well as Miss Chew for the Plaintiffs made various minor objections and offered suggestions to some of the orders made, and, in the circumstances, it was not reasonable to assume that costs would be...