DNO v DNP

Facts

DNP won an arbitration against a partnership firm and was awarded damages of US$33,009.53 and INR22,432,076.68 plus simple interest. DNO, a company, applied to set the award aside for breach of natural justice and conflict with Singapore public policy. The application began in the General Division of the High Court on 21 October 2024 and was transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court on 3 March 2025, becoming Originating Application No 4 of 2025. In DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 24 the court held that the partnership's legal personality had merged into DNO, giving it standing, but dismissed the setting-aside application on its merits.

This judgment decides DNP's application for its costs of both the pre-transfer stage, governed by the Rules of Court 2021, and the post-transfer stage, governed by the SICC Rules 2021. DNP claimed $14,000 plus GST and disbursements for the first stage, and $77,400 plus GST and disbursements for the second. DNO accepted that DNP was entitled to costs but said the sums were excessive. It also sought costs of its own on the standing issue and on two summonses: SUM 25, its successful application for leave to file a further affidavit on standing, and SUM 20, DNP's application to increase security for costs, which was settled before being heard.

Issues

1. Whether the pre-transfer costs should be assessed on the indemnity basis because DNO's case was devoid of merit.
2. Whether the post-transfer costs claimed by DNP were reasonable and proportionate under the SICC Rules 2021.
3. Whether DNO was entitled to costs on the standing issue, SUM 25 or SUM 20 to set off against DNP's costs.

Holding

The court allowed DNP's costs application, fixing total costs of $106,123.37 for OA 4 inclusive of GST and disbursements: pre-transfer costs of $15,260 plus disbursements of $4,381.35, and post-transfer costs of $84,366 plus disbursements of $2,116.02. It made no order as to costs on SUM 20 and SUM 25, and ordered interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the order until full payment.

Reasoning

On the pre-transfer costs, the court held that a case so devoid of merit can justify indemnity costs, relying on DKT v DKU [2025] 1 SLR 806, where the Court of Appeal said it might have awarded indemnity costs simply because the appeal lacked merit. DNO's complaints had been attacks on the merits presented as natural justice and public policy challenges. Its success on standing did not change this, since the substantive challenges were always going to fail and the standing point itself was finely balanced. Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions was only a starting point, and the sums claimed were not shown to be unreasonable; the court added that they would have been reasonable even on the standard basis.

On the post-transfer costs, the court applied Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96: the starting point is the costs actually incurred, so far as reasonable. DNP supplied the required breakdown, which shifted an evidential burden to DNO. DNO produced no schedule of its full costs and no comparable cases, and its points about the number of counsel and lack of complexity were pitched at a very high level. The court did not treat judgment length as a reliable measure of complexity, but found the comparable cases DNP cited, to the modest extent they were comparable, favoured DNP.

On set-off, the standing costs were rejected because DNO's challenge was without merit overall. SUM 25 was an application to be relieved of DNO's own failure to seek leave in time, after delay with no clear explanation, and the court found DNP had not sought an unfair advantage. DNP did not act unreasonably in filing SUM 20 when it did, as it followed a court direction to bring the security issue to a head.

From the judgment