Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeBelinda Ang Saw Ean J
Judgment Date02 February 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] SGHC 20
Citation[2006] SGHC 20
Published date02 February 2006
Plaintiff CounselRandhir Ram Chandra and Nicole Tan (Haridass Ho and Partners)
Defendant CounselPrem Gurbani and Bernard Yee (Gurbani and Co),Tan Teng Muan and Wong Khai Leng (Mallal and Namazie)

2 February 2006

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J:

1 This is a supplemental judgment on costs. The main judgment is reported at [2005] 4 SLR 417.

2 The parties appeared before me on 26 September 2005 to submit on the outstanding question of costs. After hearing arguments, the first and second plaintiffs were awarded 30% of their costs. For avoidance of doubt, I confirmed, at the request of counsel for the defendants, that the disbursements of the first and second plaintiffs were also to be capped at 30%. Notably, the costs as awarded reflected the outcome, both overall and on the different issues on which the court heard evidence and arguments on all sides, as well as what was fair and reasonable in the whole of the circumstances. I also made a separate costs order against the third and fourth plaintiffs.

3 The principles governing the award of costs which were elucidated in Re Elgindata (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 have been adopted in Singapore in Tullio v Maoro [1994] 2 SLR 489 and more recently in MCST No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR 1 at [57]. The principles are these:

(a) Costs are in the discretion of the court.

(b) Costs should follow the event, except when it appears to the court that some other order should be made.

(c) The general rule does not cease to apply simply because the successful party raises issues or makes allegations on which he fails, but where that has caused a significant increase in the length or cost of the proceedings he may be deprived of the whole or part of his costs.

(d) Where the successful party raises issues or makes allegations improperly or unreasonably, the court may not only deprive him of his costs but may also order him to pay the whole or a part of the unsuccessful party’s costs.

4 Turning to O 59 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), I start with O 59 r 2(2) which provides that costs are in the discretion of the court and the court has the power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid. Order 59 r 3(2) states:

If the Court in the exercise of its discretion sees fit to make any order as to the costs of or incidental to any proceedings, the Court shall, subject to this Order, order the costs to follow the event, except when it appears to the Court that in the circumstances of the case some other order should be made as to the whole or any part of the costs.

Order 59 r 5 allows the court to take into consideration the parties’ conduct before and during the proceedings in assessing costs. There is also O 59 r 6A which is aimed at the party who has failed to establish any claim or issue and has thereby unnecessarily or unreasonably added to the costs or complexity of the proceedings. I should mention that the Court of Appeal in Lim Lie...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another and Other Appeals
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 June 2006
    ...Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] 4 SLR 417, which is the main judgment, and Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 20, which deals solely with the issue of costs). In fact, and as we shall elaborate upon below, the comprehensiveness just mentioned is accom......
  • Stork Technology Services Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Eastburn Stork Pte Ltd) v First Capital Insurance Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 3 July 2006
    ...that Cameron was entitled to be indemnified by the plaintiff to the extent of 50% of the damages awarded. 8 In her supplemental judgment ([2006] SGHC 20) dated 2 February 2006 (“the supplemental judgment”), Ang J awarded 30% of their costs and disbursements to Jet Holding and JSL, on the ba......
  • Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another and Other Appeals
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 June 2006
    ...Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] 4 SLR 417, which is the main judgment, and Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 20, which deals solely with the issue of costs). In fact, and as we shall elaborate upon below, the comprehensiveness just mentioned is accom......
  • Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 March 2014
    ...(distd) Jacuzzi Canada Ltd v AMantella & Sons Ltd (1988) 31 CPC (2 d) 195 (refd) Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 20 (refd) Lie Djioe Boei v Huang Han Jiang [2000] SGHC 107 (refd) Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992) 27 NSWLR 721 (refd) Man B&W Di......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT