Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 20 November 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGCA 55 |
Year | 2014 |
Date | 20 November 2014 |
Published date | 25 November 2014 |
Hearing Date | 28 May 2014 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Kannan Ramesh SC, Eddee Ng Ka Luan, Ho Xin Ling, Ian Ho and Ooi Huey Hien (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) |
Citation | [2014] SGCA 55 |
Defendant Counsel | N Sreenivasan SC and Shankar s/o Angammah (Straits Law Practice LLC),Anparasan s/o Kamachi and Tan Wei Ming (KhattarWong LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 152, 153 and 154 of 2013 |
The present proceedings comprise appeals against the decision of the judge (“the Judge”) in
The Appellants in the present proceedings founded their claim against the Respondents in equitable compensation for breach of fiduciary duties, seeking as damages the
After hearing detailed arguments by the Appellants, we decided that the Appellants could not have obtained in the present proceedings damages comprising the unrecovered costs of the previous proceedings, and therefore dismissed the appeals. Having arrived at this conclusion, it was not necessary for us to consider the anterior question of whether the Appellants’ claim based on equitable compensation could be established in the first place. We now give the detailed grounds for our decision.
Background to the appeals The facts of the previous proceedings and the background to the appeals before us have been set out in meticulous detail in the Judgment, as well as in
As a result of this court’s decision in
Three further points bear setting out in order to provide the necessary background to the present appeals. First, costs were awarded to
Secondly, the Respondents were parties to the
Thirdly, the Appellants did consider seeking costs as against the Respondents in their individual capacities in
We observe that the Judgment was a lengthy one, but in fairness to the Judge, this was because he felt that he had to deal with all the issues which were presented to him (including the one upon which the present appeal turns, but which was dealt with by the Judge only in the last part of the Judgment (and whose decision in this particular regard we have, for the reasons set out below, generally affirmed)). In particular, the Judge considered the controversy surrounding,
As astutely pointed out by Lord Toulson in
However, given that we did
Instead,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and another v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and others and another suit
...against Coomaraswamy J’s decision in Then Khek Koon (reported as Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals [2015] 1 SLR 496), but the Court of Appeal declined to rule on this issue (at [11]). In Beyonics Technology Ltd and another v Goh Chan Peng and others [201......
-
Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh
...damages in light of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals [2015] 1 SLR 496 (“Maryani Sadeli”), which did away with the distinction between legal costs in the same proceedings (“same-party case”) and other proceed......
-
Lim Siew Soo v Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd
...Re [1898] 2 Ch 684 (refd) Lundy Granite Co, Re; Ex parte Heavan (1871) LR 6 Ch App 462 (refd) Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2015] 1 SLR 496 (refd) Mendarma Pty Ltd (No 2), Re (2007) 61 ACSR 601 (refd) Movitex Ltd, Re [1990] BCC 491 (refd) Norglen Ltd v Reeds Rains Prudential Ltd......
-
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic and another matter
...underlying the rules concerning costs in civil proceedings in Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals [2015] 1 SLR 496 (“Maryani”) at [29]–[34]: 29 The starting point must be to appreciate that in all manner of litigation, legal costs are an inevitable expense......
-
NAVIGATING THE MAZE
...categories but the errant fiduciary committed a deliberate breach of his core duties. 90Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2015] 1 SLR 496. 91Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2015] 1 SLR 496 at [11]. 92Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2015] 1 SLR 496 at [9]. 93Maryani ......
-
THE IDEALS IN THE PROPOSED RULES OF COURT
...Ahuja d/o Sh Virendra Kumar Ahuja [2015] 3 SLR 1056 at [55]. 44 [2014] 1 SLR 245 at [177]. 45 Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2015] 1 SLR 496. 46 Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2015] 1 SLR 496 at [29]. 47 See para 22 above. 48 Jeffrey Pinsler, Civil Justice in Singapore......
-
Land Law
...costs, the decision in Tunas Pte Ltd is in line with the earlier Court of Appeal decision in Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2015] 1 SLR 496 where it was held that full recovery of solicitor and client costs could only be had by parties in litigation in exceptional circumstances, f......
-
Equity and Trusts
...decisions which could materially affect the plaintiff. Equitable compensation 23 The case of Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2015]1 SLR 496 is worth a brief mention in the context of equitable compensation. The High Court's decision in Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanand Samtani[2014]......