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

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J
• Judgment Date: 02 February 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 20
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 02 February 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Randhir Ram Chandra and Nicole Tan (Haridass Ho and Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Prem Gurbani and Bernard Yee (Gurbani and Co),Tan Teng Muan and Wong Khai Leng (Mallal and Namazie)
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 20

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 Hoa v Ong Jane Rebecca (No 2) [2005] 3 SLR 116 clarified that the factors listed in O 59 r 6A are not exhaustive. To summarise, the rules make clear the “costs to follow the event” principle, and the rules at the same time indicate the wide range of considerations which will result in the court making different orders as to costs.

5 Counsel for the first defendant argued that costs should be ordered in the first defendant’s favour. The first and second plaintiffs could not be regarded as the successful party in that the first and second plaintiffs were awarded nominal damages for all their claims except for the Blow Out Preventor (“BOP”), which would have ended up in the same way as the other claims, but for the evidence of the first defendant. Counsel for the second defendant also contended that the first and second plaintiffs could not effectively be regarded as the successful party.

6 In Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies, Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries, Ltd [1951] 1 All ER 873 at 874, Devlin J made these observations on the award of costs to a plaintiff who recovered only nominal damages:

No doubt, the ordinary rule is that, where a plaintiff has been successful, he ought not to be deprived of his costs, or, at any rate, made to pay the costs of the other side, unless he has been guilty of some sort of misconduct. In applying that rule, however, it is necessary to decide whether the plaintiff really has been successful, and I do not think that a plaintiff who recovers nominal damages ought necessarily to be regarded in the ordinary sense of the word as a “successful” plaintiff. In certain cases he may be, e.g., where part of the object of the action is to establish a legal right, wholly...