AROKIASAMY STEVEN JOSEPH & Anor v LEE BOON CHUAN NELSON & 2 Ors

[2023] SGHC 291 High Court (General Division) 13 October 2023 HC/S 833/2020 ( HC/SUM 2331/2023,HC/SUM 2424/2023 ) 7 min read

2 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	13 October 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP, Legal Clinic LLC, Red Lion Circle, Anil Narain Balchandani, Felicia Chain, Jasleen Kaur, Joavan Christopher Pereira, Kuah Boon Theng, Samuel Lim Jie Bin, Shenna Tjoa, Thanjit Kaur Sekhon, Vijay Kumar Rai

Source: [2023] SGHC 291, High Court (General Division), decided 13 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure – Costs – Principles – Quantum of costs to be awarded to successful litigant-in-person

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (13)

Arbiters Inc Law Corporation Firm Donaldson & Burkinshaw LLP Firm Legal Clinic LLC Firm Red Lion Circle Firm Anil Narain Balchandani Counsel Plaintiff Felicia Chain Counsel Defendant Jasleen Kaur Counsel Plaintiff Joavan Christopher Pereira Counsel Plaintiff Kuah Boon Theng Counsel Defendant Samuel Lim Jie Bin Counsel Defendant Shenna Tjoa Counsel Defendant Thanjit Kaur Sekhon Counsel Defendant Vijay Kumar Rai Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (5)

Institute of Mental Health Defendant Arokiasamy Steven Joseph Plaintiff Gomathinayagam Kandasami Defendant Lee Boon Chuan Nelson Defendant Tan Kin Tee Plaintiff

Case Significance

Arokiasamy Steven Joseph (administrator of the estate of Salvin Foster Steven, deceased) and another v Lee Boon Chuan Nelson and others and other matters [2023] SGHC 291 is a reserved judgment of Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 13 October 2023 in Suit No 833 of 2020 and Summonses Nos 2331 and 2424 of 2023. The matter followed the court's earlier judgment of 25 August 2023 ([2023] SGHC 230), in which two summonses brought by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation were dismissed and Arbiters was ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs and the 1st and 3rd defendants. As the parties could not agree on the amount, the remaining issue for the court was the quantum of costs to be awarded, including the quantum payable to a successful litigant-in-person.

[2023] SGHC 291 explained

AROKIASAMY STEVEN JOSEPH & Anor v LEE BOON CHUAN NELSON & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 291) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 13 October 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 291 about?

AROKIASAMY STEVEN JOSEPH & Anor v LEE BOON CHUAN NELSON & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 291) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure – Costs – Principles – Quantum of costs to be awarded to successful litigant-in-person”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 291 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 230 and [2023] SGHC 52. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 291?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 291 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

This decision of the General Division of the High Court concerned the quantum of costs after two summonses filed by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation were dismissed, with Arbiters ordered to pay costs to the plaintiffs and the first and third defendants. Arbiters argued the other parties should instead bear costs, but the court rejected this, holding both summonses had been filed by Arbiters. Addressing costs for litigants-in-person, the court fixed a sum of $500 to each of the two self-represented plaintiffs, to be paid by Arbiters.

What was Arokiasamy Steven Joseph v Lee Boon Chuan Nelson [2023] SGHC 291 about?

It concerned the quantum of costs before Choo Han Teck J after two summonses by Arbiters Inc Law Corporation were dismissed with costs ordered to the plaintiffs and the 1st and 3rd defendants, decided on 13 October 2023.

What costs issue did [2023] SGHC 291 address?

Following the earlier judgment [2023] SGHC 230, Arbiters had been ordered to pay costs but the parties could not agree the amount, so the court had to fix the quantum of costs, including costs payable to a successful litigant-in-person.