Rockwills Trustee Ltd (suing as administrators of the estate of and on behalf of the dependants of Heng Ang Tee Franklin, deceased) v Wong Meng Hang and others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeJames Elisha Lee AR
Judgment Date12 November 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] SGHCR 16
Citation[2018] SGHCR 16
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date20 November 2018
Docket NumberBill of Costs No 157 of 2018
Plaintiff CounselMs Kuah Boon Theng SC and Ms Chain Xiao Jing Felicia (M/s Legal Clinic LLC)
Defendant CounselMr Melvin See Hsien Huei (M/s Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP),Mr Edward Leong (M/s MyintSoe & Selvaraj)
Subject MatterCivil Procedure,Costs,Taxation
Hearing Date25 September 2018,28 August 2018
James Elisha Lee AR: Introduction

The present application for taxation of Bill of Cost No 157/2018 (‘the Bill’) is brought by the Administrators of the Estate of Heng Ang Tee Franklin (‘the Deceased’) and representatives of the dependents of the Deceased, Rockwills Trustee Ltd, against Dr Wong Meng Hang, Dr Zhu Xiu Chun (‘the Respondents’) and Reves Clinic Pte Ltd (‘Reves Clinic’) in respect of the costs in Suit 165/2011.

Suit 165/2011 was commenced by the Applicant against the Respondents and Reves Clinic for medical negligence in the conduct of a liposuction procedure which resulted in the death of the Deceased. The case was high profile as it was the first liposuction death in Singapore and the Deceased was the CEO of a prominent property management company at the time of his demise. The Applicant sought damages under section 10 of the Civil Law Act, Chapter 43 (‘CLA’) and on behalf of the dependents, namely the Deceased’s ex-wife, 2 children and elderly mother, under section 20, 21 and 22 of the CLA. Default judgment was entered against Reves Clinic on 30 March 2011 when it did not enter an appearance in the suit. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the Respondents on 15 August 2012 after they conceded liability. The matter then proceeded for Assessment of Damages (‘AD’). By way of a judgment dated 25 May 2015, Choo J (‘the Judge’) awarded damages amounting to $5,323,253.58 in favour of the Applicant. On appeal to the Court of Appeal (‘CA’), the amount of damages was reduced to $3,293,652.50 by way of a judgment dated 1 September 2016. On 3 April 2017, the Judge directed for costs to be taxed on the standard basis if parties are unable to agree.

The Applicant filed the Bill on 30 July 2018 claiming the following: Section 1 : $450,000 (before GST); Section 2 : $5,000 (before GST); and Section 3 : $505,185.84 (before GST on items for which GST is chargeable)

The Respondents disputed the Bill by way of a Notice of Dispute filed on 20 and 21 August 2018 respectively.

I heard the substantive arguments by the parties on 28 August 2018. At the hearing an issue regarding the breakdown of the accounting expert’s fees, one of the items under section 3 arose and I gave directions for the Applicant to provide the breakdown. I heard the parties again on 25 September 2018 and reserved my decision.

Applicable Legal Principles

In taxation proceedings, the court will have regard to all relevant circumstances, and in particular, the factors as set out in Appendix 1 of Order 59 which are as follows: the complexity of the item or of the cause or matter in which it arises and the difficulty or novelty of the questions involved; the skill, specialised knowledge and responsibility required of, and the time and labour expended by, the solicitor; the number and importance of the documents (however brief) prepared or perused; the place and circumstances in which the business involved is transacted; the urgency and importance of the cause or matter to the client; and where money or property is involved, its amount or value.

In Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] 3 SLR 1052 at [78], the Court of Appeal stated that “the approach that should be adopted in taxation is that the Court should first assess the relative complexity of the matter, the work supposedly done against what was reasonably required in the prevailing circumstances, the reasonableness and proportionality of the resulting aggregate costs. In this exercise, all the Appendix 1 considerations are relevant. In the general scheme of things, no single consideration ordinarily ought to take precedence. In every matter, this calls for careful judgment by reference to existing precedents and guidelines.”

It is also pertinent to note the interplay between reasonableness, proportionality and necessity as set out by the CA at [56]:

“We think that costs that are plainly disproportionate to, inter alia, the value of the claim cannot be said to have been reasonably incurred. Thus, in assessing whether costs incurred are reasonable, it needs to be shown that the costs incurred were not just reasonable and necessary for the disposal of the matter, but also, in the entire context of that matter, proportionately incurred.”

In Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical Council [2006] 1 SLR(R) 182 at [20], the CA stated that the Court “ought to ascertain the amount of costs allowed for similar cases” and that “a departure from the norm invariably warrants justification by reference to the reasons necessitating the exercise of such judicial discretion.”

With these principles in mind, I will address each section of the Bill.

Section 1 Costs The Applicant’s submissions

The Applicant has sought $450,000 (before GST) for section 1 costs. Counsel for the Applicant Ms Kuah Boon Theng SC (‘Ms Kuah’) submitted that there were complex and novel issues arising in both the liability and assessment of damages aspects of the case. These relate respectively to the determination of the cause of death of the Deceased, and the methodology for quantifying the claim for loss of inheritance, this being the first case involving such a claim following the amendments to the CLA in 2009 and which came into effect on 2 March 2010.

Although the Respondents eventually conceded liability and interlocutory judgment was entered on 15 August 2012, this had taken place only about 1 month before the scheduled commencement of trial which had been set for 20 days. The Applicant was ready to call a total of 10 witnesses, including 3 expert witnesses. According to Ms Kuah, the Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief (‘AEICs’) of the witnesses had already been prepared by the time the Respondents confirmed their decision to concede liability and enter interlocutory judgment. Travel arrangements had also been made for the foreign expert witness.

Ms Kuah submitted that the Appellant had to work through technical and complex medical issues in order to plead and present its case. The Coroner’s Inquiry (‘CI’), which had established the cause of death to be asphyxia due to airway obstruction, secondary to the intravenous Propofol administered, had also revealed severe deficiencies in the medical care, treatment and advice provided to the Deceased and the Applicant had to analyse and obtain expert input on all these issues. Voluminous medical documents, records, literature and protocols were obtained from various clinics/hospitals and reviewed. It also involved an in-depth understanding of the pharmacodynamics and effects of Propofol. One of the experts engaged by the Appellant was a leading world authority on Propofol, Dr Paul White. Due to the unreliability of the Respondent’s medical records, there was lack of clarity regarding how much Propofol had in fact been administered to the Deceased during the liposuction procedure. Dr White was able to derive the amount of Propofol which had been introduced into the Deceased’s system based on the levels of Propofol reported in the Deceased’s toxicology report and factoring in the breakdown and half-life of the drug. Ms Kuah clarified that the present bill covers only the work done in respect of S 165/20111 and does not overlap with the work done for the CI for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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