W Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Thomas Bathurst IJ
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGHC(I) 20
• Court: International Commercial Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Application No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 13 of 2023)
• Hearing Date: 04 September 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGHC(I) 20
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Han Wah Teng (CTLC Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: William Ong Boon Hwee, Ivan Lim Jun Rui and Wong Pei Ting (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Costs,Quantum of costs for application for security,Rules of court,Non-compliance
• Published date: 10 November 2023

Thomas Bathurst IJ:

By a judgment delivered on 29 September 2023 in SIC/OA 2/2023 (SIC/SUM 13/2023) (“the Judgment”)¹ I ordered the claimant, W. Power Group EOOD (“the Claimant”), to provide security for the defendant’s costs up to the commencement of trial in the amount of $70,000. The defendant is Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd (“the Defendant”). SIC/SUM 13/2023 (“SUM 13”) is the Defendant’s application for the Claimant to provide security for the Defendant’s costs up to the commencement of the trial and the salient background facts are set out at [2]–[7] of the Judgment. I further ordered the security be provided by 6 October 2023.

The Claimant failed to provide that security and did not seek any extension of time to do so.

On 13 October 2023, the Claimant’s lawyers wrote to the Court indicating that they wished to make further arguments in respect of SUM 13 pursuant to O 21 r 15 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“SICC Rules”) and s 29B of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the SCJA”). The Claimant’s letter stated that it wished to make further arguments “on the issue of lack of evidence from the face of the materials before the Court that the Claimant has a good chance of succeeding hence the Court's finding that the parties' respective [cases] were not evenly balanced.”² On 20 October 2023, I rejected the request for further arguments. I noted that the Claimant had ample opportunity to adduce any arguments on the issues raised in the request and in fact did so. There was nothing in the request that seemed to raise any new arguments or anything that could not have been raised at the hearing. I also directed the Claimant to provide its written submissions as to the quantum of the Defendant’s costs in respect of SUM 13 within seven days and also to provide submissions as to why I should not exercise my power under O 1 r 11(6) of the SICC Rules to dismiss the proceedings in SIC/OA 2/2023 if the security was not supplied by 6 November 2023.

Costs of SUM 13

The Claimant filed submissions on 27 October 2023. It submitted that the costs of the Defendant in respect of SUM 13 should be fixed at $2,000. The submissions, whilst acknowledging that the Defendant had filed a supporting witness statement 119 pages long, a reply witness statement of 22 pages and that the Court had been referred to in excess of 15 authorities, stated the matter was relatively simple.³

It was...