DOI v DOJ & 2 Ors

Facts

In Originating Application No 20 of 2024 the claimant, DOI, succeeded in having an arbitral award set aside in the Singapore International Commercial Court: DOI v DOJ and others and another matter [2025] SGHC(I) 15, decided on 5 May 2025. Costs were to be determined if not agreed. Earlier, by Summons No 12 of 2025, the defendants had obtained permission to file a further witness statement raising additional grounds of opposition; they accepted they should pay the costs of that summons and were so ordered. The parties could not agree on either amount, and the International Judge decided both on written submissions.

For SUM 12 the claimant claimed S$80,065.45, made up of S$62,413 in professional costs and S$17,652.45 in disbursements, mostly the fees of its Indian instructing solicitors. For the main application it claimed professional costs of S$571,702 and disbursements of S$197,440.40 plus sums in rupees and US dollars. The defendants said the amounts were disproportionate and pointed to the Appendix G guidelines and to costs awarded in other cases, but provided no figures for their own costs.

Issues

1. Whether the SICC costs principles applied to SUM 12 although permission had been granted over the claimant's opposition.
2. Whether the professional costs and Indian lawyers' disbursements claimed for SUM 12 were reasonable and proportionate.
3. Whether the costs claimed for the setting-aside application should be reduced, and by how much.

Holding

The court ordered the defendants to pay the claimant S$43,000 for the costs of SUM 12 and determined the total costs payable by the defendants at S$526,632.40. Professional costs for the main application were allowed at S$407,192 and disbursements at S$76,440.40, with the Indian lawyers' fees cut to a global S$50,000.

Reasoning

The court applied Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96: SICC costs compensate the party entitled to them for expense sensibly incurred, and once that party gives a sufficient breakdown, the other side bears an evidential burden to show the costs are unreasonable. The defendants' argument that the claimant was not the successful party on SUM 12 failed, since the costs order was in its favour; O 22 r 3(1) of the SICC Rules speaks of costs incurred by the party entitled to costs. The court also rejected the defendants' attempt to read their acceptance as covering only the costs of the amendments.

On SUM 12, Appendix G had no place in hard-fought SICC proceedings between well-resourced parties. Even so, a team of six lawyers spending 81.8 hours was more than the summons warranted; the responsive witness statement was largely advocacy, and the speculative special-case argument added complexity. Professional costs were reduced to S$40,000. The Indian lawyers' review work did not visibly contribute, as no Indian law arose, so S$3,000 was allowed for them.

On the main application, comparisons with costs in other cases were of little help, but the gap was marked enough to call for scrutiny. The court allowed the S$182,192 invoiced to 31 December 2024 but found the later hours excessive for a relatively straightforward application based on the majority's copying from prior awards, especially as the claimant ran four grounds and did not succeed on all. S$225,000 was allowed for that later work. Because the defendants gave no evidence of their own costs or detailed challenge, the court held it should be restrained in finding unreasonableness itself.

From the judgment