Gurpreet Gill Maag and others v Ian McKee

The claimants, Gurpreet Gill Maag, Daniel Maag, Unum in infinitum Inc. and Illume Holding Pte Ltd, sued Ian McKee in Originating Claim No 823 of 2023 for inducement of breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, malicious falsehood, slander and libel; he counterclaimed for defamation. On 7 November 2025 the High Court dismissed both sides' claims, and later ordered costs for the defendant.

The claimants then sought a stay of execution of that costs order pending their appeal in Summons No 3351 of 2025, which the court dismissed on 23 January 2026. This decision fixes the costs of that summons. The defendant asked for S$18,000 on an indemnity basis plus disbursements of S$286, pointing to a letter warning the claimants that the summons lacked merit. The claimants proposed S$2,000 all-in for what they called a simple application.

1. Whether costs of the stay summons should be awarded on the indemnity basis.
2. Whether the costs should follow the range in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Directions 2021.

Indemnity costs outside a contract are exceptional, the court said, citing [2002] 2 All ER 242. Pressing on after a warning that an application lacks merit is not the high degree of unreasonableness required, and this application was not wholly without substance or an abuse of process. A bare reservation of the right to seek indemnity costs gave no entitlement to them, as costs stay in the court's discretion under O 21 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2021.

Appendix G gives a usual range of S$3,000 to S$11,000 for such stay summonses. The defendant's figure looked excessive and the claimants' fell short, and the court gave the claimants' precedents limited weight. As the summons was fairly straightforward the award sat at the lower end, adjusted for the volume of material the defendant had to review.

The court refused indemnity costs and ordered the claimants to pay the defendant costs of S$5,000 on the standard basis, plus reasonable disbursements of S$286.