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

Facts

W. Power Group EOOD (W Power) sued Mingyang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd (Mingyang) in proceedings begun on 17 June 2022 in the General Division of the High Court and transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court by an order made on 7 March 2023, becoming Originating Application No 2 of 2023. The transfer order kept the High Court costs scale and Order 21 of the Rules of Court 2021 for costs incurred before the transfer.

By judgment dated 15 October 2024, reported as [2024] SGHC(I) 29, the court struck out W Power's Statement of Claim, refused leave to amend, dismissed the claim and ordered W Power to pay Mingyang's costs. The parties could not agree the amount, so they filed written submissions and the court decided costs without an oral hearing. Mingyang claimed $54,285 for the pre-transfer period and $171,955 for the post-transfer period, along with Hong Kong counsel's fees in renminbi, Bulgarian counsel's fees of €7,240 and disbursements of $10,189.80. W Power offered $10,000 for pre-transfer costs and $20,000 for post-transfer costs, relying on the Appendix G guidelines.

Issues

1. Whether pre-transfer costs should be assessed from the Appendix G ranges and whether an uplift was warranted.
2. Whether Appendix G governed post-transfer costs under the SICC Rules and whether the costs of the strike-out and amendment summons were reasonable.
3. Whether Mingyang's foreign counsel's fees were reasonably incurred.

Holding

The court ordered W Power to pay Mingyang's costs of $21,000 for the pre-transfer period and $177,401.97 for the post-transfer period, comprising $121,910 for SUM 15, $45,212.17 for the balance of the work and $10,189.80 in disbursements. It also allowed RMB55,452 for Hong Kong counsel and €7,240 for Bulgarian counsel, and ordered costs of the assessment of $5,000 plus $270 in disbursements.

Reasoning

For the pre-transfer period, the court followed Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another [2022] 3 SLR 174, approved on this point by the Court of Appeal: Appendix G is the starting point but the complexity of a case may justify an uplift. The guideline range for matters settled at the pleading stage was $5,000 to $14,000. An uplift was justified because the claim was substantial, concerned events ten years before the suit, required investigation of Bulgarian wind power regulations and liaison with Bulgarian counsel, and involved preparing for four case management hearings. The court applied a 50% uplift to the top of the range and awarded $21,000.

For the post-transfer period, the court held that W Power relied too heavily on Appendix G. As the Court of Appeal noted in Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96, there is no discernible link between costs under the Rules of Court and under the SICC Rules, where a successful party recovers costs sensibly and reasonably incurred, subject to proportionality and reasonableness. Once the successful party gives a sufficient breakdown, the evidential burden moves to the losing party. Mingyang gave a detailed schedule of time and hourly rates; W Power challenged none of the items and filed no schedule of its own despite the court's direction. The $121,910 for SUM 15 was reasonable, as it involved a strike-out contested to the hearing and an amendment application with a complex pleading that sought to join a non-consenting claimant. However, the $30,665 for case management and $17,395 for particulars were together excessive, and the court allowed $37,000 for that work, alongside the undisputed security costs and $1,895 for the co-counsel registration.

On foreign counsel, the court accepted that Mingyang was not Singapore-based but was not satisfied the pre-transfer Hong Kong counsel's fees of RMB99,154.50 were reasonably incurred for the proceedings, allowing RMB50,000, while the post-transfer RMB5,452 was allowed in full. The Bulgarian counsel's fees were allowed because the Bulgarian regulatory regime and the changes that made the project unprofitable had to be understood.

From the judgment