Pang Giap Onn (alias Arif Peter Pang) v Harmesh Singh s/o Ram Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 29 July 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 149
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 149
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 30 July 2016
• Docket Number: Bill of Costs No 45 of 2016 (HC/Summons No 2822 of 2016 and HC/Summons 2823 of 2016)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Pang Giap Onn @ Arif Peter Pang (Peter Pang & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Harmesh Singh s/o Ram Singh (in-person)
• Subject Matter: Civil procedure,Costs,Taxation
• Hearing Date: 18 July 2016

Choo Han Teck J:

The applicant, Mr Arif Peter Pang (“Mr Pang”) is an advocate and solicitor of 42 years’ standing. Mr Harmesh Singh s/o Ram Singh (“Mr Singh”), the respondent, signed a Warrant to Act dated 7 December 2015 and engaged the services of Mr Pang to act for him in Suit 543 of 2013 (“the Suit”). According to the Warrant to Act, Mr Singh agreed to pay Mr Pang for his professional services a $10,000 non-refundable retainer and at an hourly rate of $500 with disbursements.

After several disagreements over the conduct of the Suit, on 10 December 2015, Mr Pang told Mr Singh that he no longer wished to act for him. Nevertheless, the parties remained in contact and Mr Pang continued to provide Mr Singh with legal advice up until 8 January 2016. On 10 January 2016, Mr Pang ceased to act for Mr Singh. On 11 January 2016, Mr Pang sent his bill to Mr Singh for work done. Mr Singh disagreed with the bill and the parties submitted the bill for taxation.

The Assistant Registrar (“AR”) taxed the costs for work done other than for taxation (“Section 1 costs”) at $15,000, the cost for work done for taxation (“Section 2 costs”) at $450 and the cost of disbursements (“Section 3 costs”) at $4,481.45. This was based on the AR’s assessment of the complexity of the matter, nature of work done and period of engagement. In reference to his bill of costs, Mr Pang was awarded the whole of the Section 2 and Section 3 costs but his Section 1 costs were reduced from $22,500 to $15,000. Dissatisfied with the AR’s decision, both Mr Pang and Mr Singh filed the present applications for review of the taxation order.

On review, Mr Pang contends that the Section 1 costs awarded by the AR was taxed incorrectly because it was done on a standard basis rather than on an indemnity basis as it should have been for solicitor and client costs. Mr Pang also raises the point that Mr Singh’s application for review was defective in that he did not specify the items on the bill that he was disputing in his application. Mr Pang hence submits that since the items on the bill had not been challenged, he should be entitled to 43 hours of work at his charge out rate of $500 per hour. The amount of 43 hours is reached after deducting 2 hours from the original bill which stated 45 hours which Mr Pang accepts should be excluded because those 2 hours of work had already been paid for by Mr Singh with a cheque in the amount of $1,000.

Mr Singh did not dispute that work had indeed been done by Mr Pang during the period of engagement but contends that the Section 1...