PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: George Wei J
• Judgment Date: 25 November 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 301
• Plaintiff Counsel: Govintharasah s/o Ramanathan and Sarah Kuek Xin Xin (Gurbani & Co LLC)
• Docket Number: Suit No 542 of 2012 (Summonses Nos 3342 of 2015 and 4013 of 2015)
• Date: 25 November 2015
• Hearing Date: 28 August 2015,04 August 2015,04 September 2015
• Subject Matter: Costs,Civil Procedure
• Year: 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 301
• Defendant Counsel: Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien and Eugene Ong (Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 28 November 2015

George Wei J: Costs

This is my decision on costs for Summons No 3342 of 2015 (“SUM 3342”) and Summons No 3725 of 2015 (“SUM 3725”). Both summonses concern applications for anti-suit injunctions taken out by the first and third defendants against the plaintiff in Suit No 542 of 2012 (“the Singapore Action”). To provide some context to my decision on costs, I shall first set out a brief overview of what transpired in the proceedings.

The plaintiff commenced the Singapore Action in 2012. Almost three years later, in early 2015, the plaintiff commenced a fresh action in Jakarta (“Jakarta Action”) against, inter alia, the third defendant and the parent company of the first defendant. In response to this development, the first and third defendants applied, in SUM 3342, for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain the plaintiff’s pursuit of the Jakarta Action against the third defendant and the parent company of the first defendant. This application was taken out on the basis that the plaintiff’s pursuit of two simultaneous and duplicative actions was vexatious and oppressive.

As there was reason to believe that the court in Jakarta may delve into the merits of the case prior to the hearing of the application for the final anti-suit injunction, the first and third defendants sought an interim anti-suit injunction (“the Interim Order”) to preserve the status quo pending the hearing of the application for the final anti-suit injunction. This was the subject matter of SUM 3725. The application for the Interim Order was heard and granted on 4 August 2015.

On 28 August 2015, I heard the application for a final anti-suit injunction (“the Final Order”). I found that the plaintiff’s pursuit of two similar (if not identical) actions in Singapore and Jakarta was vexatious and oppressive and granted the Final Order. After delivering my decision on SUM 3342 on 4 September 2015, I directed parties to tender brief submissions to the court on the appropriate basis for the costs award. After perusing the submissions that the parties have tendered, I am of the considered view that costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis.

The arguments

In so far as the Interim Order is concerned, the first and third defendants submit that an award of indemnity costs is warranted as the application for the Interim Order was entirely necessitated by the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct. The instances of unreasonable conduct cited include inter alia: The plaintiff’s failure to respond to a letter requesting the plaintiff to confirm that it would not take any further steps in the Jakarta Action pending the hearing of the application for the Final Order. The plaintiff’s refusal to amend its statement of claim in the Jakarta Action so as to ensure that the court documents for the Jakarta Action were properly served on the third defendant in Singapore.

In so far as the Final Order is concerned, the first and third defendants submit that an award of indemnity costs would be appropriate because the grant of the injunctive relief is premised on a finding that the respondent’s conduct is vexatious or oppressive (or unconscionable). The first and third defendants also argue that an award on the indemnity basis is...