Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 17 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 79
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 08 April 2014
• Docket Number: Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeal No 94 of 2014)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Bachoo Mohan Singh (Counsel) and Ling Leong Hui (Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Ooi Oon Tat (Judy Cheng & Co)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Costs,Taxation
• Published date: 22 April 2014

Choo Han Teck J:

This was an appeal by the applicant, a law firm named “Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners”, against the order of the assistant registrar staying an order for the taxation of costs. The respondent was a client of the applicant since July 2011 and the applicant was retained under a warrant to act dated 20 August 2011, signed by the respondent.

The matter in which the applicant was retained to act concerned certain trusts and payments out of those trusts. The matter had not been resolved when the respondent changed solicitors and appointed Mr Almenoar to act in place of the applicant. The applicant then raised a bill of costs for the solicitor and client costs, based on rates of charges set out in the warrant to act.

The applicant was told to have its bill taxed. The respondent subsequently alleged that the bill should not be taxed on the terms set out in the warrant to act because it was superseded by an oral agreement to the effect that the terms in the warrant to act were to be used only as a basis for taxing the party and party costs should the respondent succeed in the pending litigation.

The applicant applied by Summons No 3068 of 2013 for an order that the applicant be allowed to draw up a bill of costs for its solicitor and client costs and for the bill to be taxed on an indemnity basis. On 30 August 2013, despite the respondent’s claim of an oral agreement, Andrew Ang J ordered that the applicant’s bill be taxed.

The taxation proceedings was due to be heard on 19 November 2013, but was adjourned to 3 December 2013. On 3 December 2013, Mr Almenoar informed the assistant registrar that he intended to apply to be discharged as the respondent’s solicitor. The assistant registrar, according to counsel, suggested that parties attend before Andrew Ang J for clarification of the orders made by him on 30 August 2013. The clarification was fixed to be heard on 8 January 2014 by Andrew Ang J, who held that he was functus officio and that a clarification of that nature should not be determined by him.

The applicant’s bill of costs was then re-fixed for taxation on 27 January 2014. The hearing was adjourned at the request of Mr Ooi, counsel for the respondent. The assistant registrar informed parties that the taxation will proceed on the new date if a formal application was not filed to stay the taxation. On 27 February 2014, Mr Ooi obtained another adjournment for him to file the application for a stay. This was...