GURPREET GILL MAAG & 3 Ors v Ian McKee

Facts

The claimants, Gurpreet Gill Maag, Daniel Maag, Unum in infinitum Inc. and Illume Holding Pte. Ltd., had sued Ian McKee in Originating Claim No 823 of 2023. The claimants had agreed to advise Vuulr Pte Ltd, a video distribution company whose sole director was the defendant, on strategy and fundraising and to consult for it. The claimants sued for inducement of breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, malicious falsehood, slander and libel, alleging that he had improperly disclosed confidential information and made false statements about their performance. He counterclaimed against the first claimant in defamation.

The High Court dismissed both the claims and the counterclaim and ordered costs of S$130,000 in the defendant's favour. The claimants appealed and, by Summons No 3351 of 2025, applied for a stay of execution of the costs order pending the appeal, or alternatively a stay on condition that they pay the costs into court. They relied on emails and letters from 2022–2023 in which, they said, the defendant admitted financial difficulty during Vuulr's insolvency, his decision not to invest in Vuulr, and his sale of his apartment just before Vuulr's liquidation, which they alleged was asset dissipation.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant's alleged financial instability amounted to special circumstances justifying a stay of execution of the costs order
2. Whether a stay conditional on payment of the costs into court should be granted given the appeal's prospects

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application for a stay, and for a conditional stay, of execution of the costs order. Counsel were directed to file written submissions on costs of no more than five pages each by 4 February 2026.

Reasoning

An applicant must show that there is no reasonable probability of recovering the costs paid over if the appeal succeeds, following Lee Sian Hee v Oh Kheng Soon [1991] 2 SLR(R) 869. The court found the claimants' evidence largely outdated and speculative. The 2022–2023 communications concerned Vuulr's insolvency and said nothing about the defendant's present ability to pay. Declining to invest might simply reflect an investment he did not want to make, and selling a home in hard times could have many personal reasons, including downsizing as he explained. Nor would any costs or damages on a successful appeal be so large as to justify a stay on such thin evidence.

On a conditional stay the court may consider the appeal's chances, citing Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd v Far East Mining Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC 47. The court saw no realistic prospect of success. The inducement claim needed a finding that Vuulr breached its contract, but Vuulr was not a party. The confidential information belonged to Vuulr, and the defendant as director was entitled, indeed obliged, to tell the board of its finances. Publication of most statements was not proved; for the rest, falsity was not shown and qualified privilege and fair comment applied.

From the judgment