Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Kannan Ramesh J |
Judgment Date | 08 December 2021 |
Neutral Citation | [2021] SGHC(I) 16 |
Court | International Commercial Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 4 of 2017 |
Published date | 10 December 2021 |
Year | 2021 |
Hearing Date | 16 July 2021,18 August 2021,12 November 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Dinesh Dhillon, Lim Dao Kai, Margaret Joan Ling, Dhivya Naidu and Serene Chee Yi Wen (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Toh Kian Sing SC, Cheng Wai Yuen, Mark, Soh Yu Xian, Priscilla and Lim Wee Teck Darren (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP),Teng Po Yew (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Citation | [2021] SGHC(I) 16 |
This judgment addresses the costs of proceedings that have spanned more than six years. The facts of the dispute that led to these protracted proceedings have been set out extensively in
On 3 July 2018, we delivered the
On 8 January 2019, following delivery of the
On 21 December 2020, the
Following parties’ submissions, on 3 June 2021, in
Finally, in
It is against the backdrop of these decisions that we now deliver our judgment on costs.
Parties’ positionsAs a starting point, it is indisputable that the present case is one that falls in the second of two categories of the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) cases identified by the Court of Appeal in the recent case of
Parties have accordingly made submissions on costs pre- and post-transfer, in addition to disbursements, and have taken vastly differing approaches to assessing costs. Kiri has asked for costs amounting to S$7,797,718.50. Senda rejects Kiri’s costs as disproportionate and counters with the figure of S$360,000.
On costs incurred pre-transfer (“Pre-Transfer Costs”), Kiri recognises that O 59 of the ROC applies, but argues that it ought to be entitled to costs exceeding the scale provided in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions (“Appendix G”), leading to a sum of S$500,000. Similarly, Senda refers to Appendix G, but argues for a strict application of the rates set out therein. Its position is that Kiri is only entitled to a sum of S$102,000 for Pre-Transfer Costs.
On the costs post-transfer (“Post-Transfer Costs”), Kiri seeks S$7,297,718.50. This encompasses costs for two periods:
Senda argues that for the Post-Transfer Costs incurred during the Post-Transfer Liability Tranche, the court ought to continue to apply Appendix G strictly, and on that basis, Kiri is only entitled to S$102,000. On the Valuation Tranche, Senda’s primary position is that parties ought to bear their own costs, as: (a) it has succeeded on significant issues; and (b) the final valuation is in-between the parties’ respective proposed figures. Alternatively, Senda argues that if costs are awarded for the Valuation Tranche, the court ought to apply a significant discount of at least 48%, which it submits will yield a figure of S$156,000. In riposte, Kiri argues that it ought to be entitled to the full costs of the Valuation Tranche as it has substantially succeeded in the valuation proceedings.
On disbursements, Kiri claims S$5,944,073.44. This figure consists of travel expenses, expert witness fees and foreign lawyer’s fees. Senda does not offer an alternative figure. Rather, it objects to several of the line items claimed by Kiri.
Senda also takes issue with the mode of assessing costs, arguing that costs and disbursements ought to be referred to the Registrar for assessment based on the procedure for taxation under O 59 r 20 of the ROC. Senda argues that this was the effect of the costs order in the Oral Judgment (see [3] above). Kiri disagrees, arguing that costs and disbursements ought to be fixed by this court.
IssuesFrom the above, several issues arise for our consideration, which we address in turn below:
The first issue is whether this court ought to order taxation of costs in the usual way,
Kiri argues that the word “taxed” “refers in practical terms to costs being decided by [this Court] as opposed to [it] commencing taxation proceedings by filing a bill of costs under O 59”. Senda disputes this, arguing instead that the costs order in the Oral Judgment is clear, and that the only plausible reading is that, absent agreement, Kiri had been directed to have its costs for the liability stage taxed in the usual way by a Registrar under O 59 r 20.
We disagree with Senda’s interpretation of [12] of the Oral Judgment; that was not what was ordered, and in fact could not have been the case in the light of O 110 r 46(6) of the ROC. We elaborate.
Taxation in the O 59 sense entails the Registrar, and not the trial judge or trial
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic and another matter
...only one reference to reasonableness. As the SICC recently observed in Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2022] 3 SLR 174 (“Kiri”) at [73]–[77], in light of the specific considerations applying to proceedings in the SICC which we will elaborate on below, this......
-
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
...Lao People's Democratic Republic v Sanum Investments Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 322 (refd) Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd [2022] 3 SLR 174 (folld) Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2021] 5 SLR 228 (refd) Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samta......
-
Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd
...3(1), O 22 r 3(2) (consd); O 2 r 1(3), O 2 r 4(1), O 2 r 4(4) [Editorial note: The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2022] 3 SLR 174.] Toh Kian Sing SC, Cheng Wai Yuen Mark, Chew Xiang, Soh Yu Xian PriscillaandLim Wee Teck Darren (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) for the Dhil......
-
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another
...reasoning of the SICC in its previous decisions on this point (namely Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2022] 3 SLR 174 (“Kiri”) and Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter [2022] SGHC(I) 6 (“Lao Holdings NV”))......