Mahmood bin Ghani v Seow Sin Hwa

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtFederal Court (Singapore)
JudgeChua F A J
Judgment Date03 February 1967
Neutral Citation[1967] SGFC 5
Citation[1967] SGFC 5
Defendant CounselDennis Murphy (Murphy & Dunbar)
Publication Date19 September 2003
Date03 February 1967
Plaintiff CounselCS Wu (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 16 of 1966

In this case the applicant, who is an infant, took out an originating summons by her father and next friend to obtain the court`s approval to accept a sum of $4,000 as damages in respect of a claim arising out of an accident involving a motor cycle ridden by the respondent and the applicant, who sustained injuries as a result of the accident.

No writ of summons had yet been issued as the offer to pay the sum of $4,000 was made on behalf of the respondent at a fairly early stage of the matter.

At the hearing of the originating summons the settlement was approved and it was ordered, inter alia , that the costs of the application as between party and party were to be taxed and paid by the respondent to the applicant`s solicitors. The bill of costs came up for taxation in due course and was duly taxed. Subsequently, the respondent submitted objections to the taxation which were heard by the registrar.

The main objection taken by the respondent was that the registrar had allowed a `getting up` fee in a case where there was never to be a trial as the matter had been settled before the issue of any writ of summons. The item in question in the bill of costs is item 28 which reads as follows:

Instructions to approve settlement of the applicant`s claim perusing police reports, sketch plan, photographs and other documents, considering liability thereon, perusing medical reports and considering the offer to settle, looking up authorities on quantum of damages and generally preparing the case for the approval of the judge. $1,000.



Before the registrar it was contended by counsel for the respondent that a `getting up` fee could only be allowed under item 81 or item 82 of Sch C to the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934 where the matter is to proceed to trial and as in this case there was never to be a trial, no `getting up` fee should be allowed. It was also submitted by counsel for the respondent that O LXII r 49(2) applied to this matter, which was heard by a judge in chambers, and that as no memorandum in writing had been expressly made and signed by the judge no special allowance should be awarded to the applicant`s solicitor.

On behalf of the applicant it was argued that item 80 of Sch C provides that the registrar may on special grounds increase any allowance in respect of item 59 to 79 inclusive of Sch C and accordingly a special fee for `Instructions for Originating Summons` under item 62 should be allowed. It was also submitted by counsel for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Starlite Ceramic Industry Ltd v Hiap Huat Pottery
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 Febrero 1973
    ...Kheng v Yap Ee Boon [1934] 1 MLJ 126 (refd) Looi Guan Kway v Low Lean Bok [1939] 1 MLJ 224 (refd) Mahmood bin Ghani v Seow Sin Hwa [1965-1967] SLR (R) 512; [1965-1968] SLR 204 (not folld) Malayan Trading Co v Lee Pak Yin [1941] MLJ 207 (folld) Pecheries Ostendaises v Merchants' Marine [1928......

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