W. POWER GROUP EOOD v MINGYANG WIND POWER (INTERNATIONAL) CO. LTD

Facts

W. Power Group EOOD, the claimant, brought Originating Application No 2 of 2023 against Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd, the defendant. The proceedings had been transferred from the General Division of the High Court to the Singapore International Commercial Court on 7 March 2023, with an order that post-transfer costs would be decided under the SICC costs regime.

In a judgment delivered on 29 September 2023 on the defendant's Summons No 13 of 2023, the court ordered the claimant to give security for the defendant's costs up to trial in the amount of $70,000, by 6 October 2023. The claimant did not provide the security and did not ask for more time. Its lawyers instead wrote on 13 October 2023 seeking to make further arguments on the security application. The court rejected that request on 20 October 2023, finding nothing new in it, and directed the claimant to file submissions on the quantum of costs of the summons and on why the proceedings should not be dismissed under O 1 r 11(6) of the SICC Rules if security was not given. This decision dealt with those two matters.

Issues

1. Whether the costs of the security application should be fixed at the $2,000 the claimant proposed or at a higher sum.
2. Whether the court should exercise its power under O 1 r 11(6) of the SICC Rules to order that the proceedings be dismissed unless security was provided.

Holding

The court ordered that unless the claimant provided the security required by the 29 September 2023 judgment on or before 17 November 2023, the proceedings would be dismissed. It also ordered the claimant to pay the defendant's costs of Summons No 13 of 2023, fixed at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements.

Reasoning

On costs, the claimant said the matter was simple, while accepting that the defendant had filed a long supporting witness statement and a reply statement and cited many authorities. The court noted that costs in the SICC are assessed on a subjective basis under O 22 r 3(1), aimed at ensuring a successful party is not unfairly out of pocket, subject to proportionality and reasonableness. Although the application was not particularly complex, the court accepted the defendant's figure of $6,000, noting the range given in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 for such applications and the different regime that applies in the SICC.

On the unless order, the claimant argued the court should hold back because it intended to seek further arguments and might appeal. The court observed that the request for further arguments had already been rejected and no application for permission to appeal had been filed. Even if one had been, it would not stay the proceedings under O 21 r 6(1) of the SICC Rules. In those circumstances an order dismissing the proceedings unless security was provided within seven days was appropriate.

From the judgment