DXB v DXC

[2026] SGHC 119 High Court (General Division) 29 May 2026 • HC/OA 405/2026 • 14 min read
2 cases cited

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Sealing orders Legal Profession — Bill of costs — Assessment of bills

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Legal Profession

Judges (1)

Andre Maniam Delivered

Counsel (9)

Oaks Legal LLC Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Arthur Yap Counsel Applicant Chew Xizhi Stephanie Counsel Respondent Chia Wan Lu Counsel Respondent Darrell Low Kim Boon Counsel Applicant Liang Liwen Counsel Applicant Ong Hui Jing Counsel Applicant Thio Shen Yi Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

DXB Applicant DXC Respondent

Case Significance

DXB v DXC [2026] SGHC 119 is an ex tempore judgment of the High Court General Division by Andre Maniam J, delivered on 29 May 2026. A client (DXB) applied under s 120 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 for an order to assess the solicitors' (DXC) bills of costs, but more than 12 months had passed since those bills were delivered, requiring proof of special circumstances under s 122. The court dismissed the application, finding that neither the alleged ambiguity in an arbitration clause in an engagement agreement dated 4 April 2024 nor the claim of fraudulent inflation of the solicitors' invoices constituted special circumstances justifying late assessment. Oaks Legal LLC (Arthur Yap, Darrell Low Kim Boon, Liang Liwen, Ong Hui Jing) appeared for the applicant; TSMP Law Corporation (Thio Shen Yi, Chew Xizhi Stephanie, Chia Wan Lu) appeared for the respondent.

Summary

A client applied under s 120 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 for assessment of its solicitors' bills more than 12 months after the bills were rendered, relying on two alleged special circumstances: ambiguity in the dispute resolution clause of the engagement agreement, and suspected fraudulent inflation of invoices. The court held that neither ground explained why the client had not applied within the 12-month limitation period, as the client had known of the overcharging concerns well before the deadline expired. The application for out-of-time assessment was dismissed, and the client was ordered to pay costs of $24,089.

What counts as special circumstances for late assessment of legal bills under the Legal Profession Act?

In DXB v DXC [2026] SGHC 119, Andre Maniam J held on 29 May 2026 that neither an ambiguous arbitration clause in a 4 April 2024 engagement agreement nor allegations of fraudulent invoice inflation qualified as special circumstances under s 122 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 to justify a late bill assessment application.

Statutes Cited

Legal Profession Act (Cap 161)
s 120

Cases Cited (2)

SLR (2)
[2015] 5 SLR 722 [2025] 1 SLR 849

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 119)