DBX & Anor v DBZ

[2024] SGHC(I) 5 Singapore International Commercial Court 8 February 2024 • SIC/OA 10/2023 • 10 min read

6 cases cited Cited by 3 cases

Catchwords

Arbitration — Costs

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Roger Giles Delivered

Counsel (7)

A.Ang, Seah & Hoe Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Ang Cheng Ann Alfonso Counsel Applicant Chong Wan Yee Monica Counsel Respondent Foo Hsien Weng Counsel Respondent James Ch'ng Chin Leong Counsel Applicant Leau Jun Li Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

DBX Applicant DBY Applicant DBZ Respondent

Case Significance

DBX and another v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5 was decided by Roger Giles IJ in the Singapore International Commercial Court on 8 February 2024, in Originating Application No 10 of 2023. It was a determination of the amount of costs following the substantive judgment given on 15 November 2023 (DBX and another v DBZ [2023] SGHC(I) 18), in which the applicants, DBX and DBY, had been ordered to pay the respondent DBZ's costs. The parties could not agree on the amount, and the court determined it on the respondent's written submissions and the applicants' reply.

The judgment records that when the proceedings were transferred to the SICC, the Deputy Registrar directed that the costs regime under Order 21 of the Rules of Court 2021 and Appendix G to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 apply to pre-transfer costs, while Order 22 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 apply to post-transfer costs. The respondent claimed costs of $187,000 (comprising $65,000 pre-transfer, $115,000 post-transfer and $7,000 for the costs submissions) plus disbursements of $7,709.38 and HKD151,978.26, the latter being the cost of instructing its Hong Kong law expert, Mr Stephen Tisdall. The applicants responded with $16,288 for pre-transfer costs and $45,000 for post-transfer costs. The catchword is Arbitration (Costs). The applicants were represented by A.Ang, Seah & Hoe; the respondent by WongPartnership LLP.

[2024] SGHC(I) 5 explained

DBX & Anor v DBZ ([2024] SGHC(I) 5) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 8 February 2024. It is categorised under Arbitration. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 3 other reported Singapore judgments, 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 [2024] SGHC(I) 5 about?

DBX & Anor v DBZ ([2024] SGHC(I) 5) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Costs”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2024] SGHC(I) 5?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(I) 5 has been cited by 3 later reported Singapore judgments. 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

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

8 February 2024

Case Summary

DBX and another v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5

SIC/OA 10/2023

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (delivered by Roger Giles IJ):

Outcome: The Singapore International Commercial Court awarded the respondent $144,000 in total for costs, and $7,709.38 and HKD151,978.26 for disbursements.

Background

1 The respondent commenced two arbitrations before the same sole arbitrator, one against each of two applicants. The first applicant is an investment holding company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, while the second applicant is its sole director and beneficial shareholder. The respondent is a company incorporated in Singapore, which carries on the business of brokering stocks and futures. The tribunal issued awards dated 18 February 2023 in both arbitrations. The tribunal subsequently issued corrections dated 19 March 2023 to both awards on its own initiative by way of email on 20 March 2023.

2 The applicants applied to the court to set aside both awards. On 15 November 2023, the court dismissed the applicants’ application to set aside the awards: see DBX and another v DBZ [2023] SGHC(I) 18. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, but the parties were unable to agree on the amount of the costs. The respondent claimed: (a) costs of $187,000, made up of $65,000 for pre-transfer costs, $115,000 for post- transfer costs and $7000 for preparation of the costs submissions; and (b) disbursements of $7709.38 and HKD151,978.26. The applicants submitted for: (a) $16,288 for pre-transfer costs; and (b) $45,000 for post-transfer costs. The applicants did not contest the amount of $7000 for preparation of the costs submissions nor the amounts for disbursements.

3 When the proceedings were transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court (“the SICC”), the learned Deputy Registrar directed that the costs regime under O 21 of the Rules of Court 2021 (“the ROC”) and Appendix G to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (“the Costs Guidelines”) should apply to the assessment of pre-transfer costs, and the costs regime under O 22 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“the SICC Rules”) should apply to the assessment of post-transfer costs.

The court’s decision

1 The amount for the pre-transfer costs should be $22,000: at [13]. The successful party is entitled to a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred. Whether costs were reasonably incurred is assessed objectively by considering whether the costs were incurred in a way corresponding to the level of effort that is generally accepted as being likely to be expended for the particular type of work in question; whether costs are a reasonable amount is also assessed objectively by considering whether the overall amount corresponds to the level of costs generally accepted as being likely to be incurred for the particular type of dispute: at [5]. In its assessment of pre-transfer costs, the court is guided by the factors in O 21 r 2(2) of the ROC, and by costs precedents and the Costs Guidelines: at [6]. While the indicative range in the Costs Guidelines applicable to the present case is $13,000 to $40,000, the range is a daily tariff for the complete proceedings and must be adjusted as the pre-transfer costs are for only part of the proceedings. A suitable basis is the ratio between actual pre-transfer costs and actual post-transfer costs, which is 40.72% in the present case, giving a starting range of $5,293.60 to $16,288: at [10]. It is necessary to look to the circumstances of the present case in considering occasion to depart from the Costs Guidelines, instead of applying an across-the-board percentage to the actual pre-transfer costs based on costs precedents: at [11]. While abandonment of the Costs Guidelines is not warranted, a moderate uplift is, as attention and time were required for a considerable volume of materials in the applicants’ case and in the respondent’s case in reply: at [13].

2 The amount for the post-transfer costs should be $115,000: at [17]. The starting point in the assessment of the post-transfer costs is the costs in fact incurred by the successful party, followed by an inquiry into whether those actual costs are proportionate and reasonable: at [14]. The applicants did not challenge whether the actual post-transfer costs were proportionate and reasonable. Simply looking to the post-transfer costs awarded in other cases, without more, is at odds with the subjective approach to the assessment of costs under the SICC regime. The respondent’s claim of $115,000, reduced from the actual costs of $125,940, is neither disproportionate nor unreasonable: at [17].

3 Therefore, the court awarded the respondent $144,000 in total for costs, and $7,709.38 and HKD151,978.26 for disbursements: at [18].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.

What was determined in DBX and another v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5?

Roger Giles IJ determined the amount of costs payable on 8 February 2024, following the substantive judgment of 15 November 2023 ([2023] SGHC(I) 18) in which DBX and DBY were ordered to pay DBZ's costs but the parties could not agree on the quantum.

What costs did the respondent claim in DBX v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5?

The respondent claimed $187,000 in costs, comprising $65,000 pre-transfer, $115,000 post-transfer and $7,000 for the costs submissions, plus disbursements of $7,709.38 and HKD151,978.26 for instructing its Hong Kong law expert, Mr Stephen Tisdall.

Which costs regimes applied in DBX v DBZ [2024] SGHC(I) 5?

On transfer to the SICC, the Deputy Registrar directed that Order 21 of the Rules of Court 2021 and Appendix G to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 govern pre-transfer costs, while Order 22 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 govern post-transfer costs.