Armira Capital Limited v Ji Zenghe and others

Armira Capital Ltd, a UK-regulated firm with no presence in Singapore, arranged custody of shares pledged as collateral for loans to Ji Zenghe and Fan Xianyong, with Oriental Straits Fund III as guarantor. Its terms of business contained an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and costs indemnities. The respondents nevertheless sued Armira and others in Singapore in Originating Claim No 36 of 2023, alleging among other things fraudulent misrepresentation, dishonest assistance, conspiracy and breach of trust, and obtained injunctions and default judgments in the defendants' absence.

Armira had the default judgments set aside, obtained an unless order after the respondents missed several case conferences, and had service out and the injunctions set aside as against it. Each order awarded Armira costs on an indemnity basis. In Bill of Costs No 171 of 2024, Armira claimed S$477,700 plus GST for its Singapore lawyers, costs of the assessment, disbursements, and fees of its English solicitors, Fieldfisher, claimed as disbursements. The respondents argued that indemnity costs meant a one-third uplift on the Appendix G ranges, totalling S$65,170, and that £244,000 Armira had received from another party under a separate indemnity should be deducted.

1. How costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis where there is a contractual indemnity.
2. What amounts should be allowed for the Singapore lawyers, the assessment, disbursements and the English solicitors.
3. Whether the indemnity payment from another party should reduce the costs payable by the respondents.

A contractual indemnity does not mean the lawyers' invoices are simply allowed; the court still assesses costs, but contractual indemnities are generally upheld absent manifest injustice. Nor is there a rule that indemnity costs equal standard costs plus one-third; following Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] 3 SLR 1052, that is guidance only. The court weighed Appendix G with an uplift alongside the invoices.

The applications involved foreign law, extensive tracing and serious allegations against a regulated firm. The team and hours were reasonable, and the respondents' conduct in suing despite the jurisdiction clause and then not attending case conferences counted against them. Against that, the matters were interlocutory and ended early.

Fieldfisher's fees were properly claimed as disbursements and assessed on UK principles, but Singapore's proportionality requirement still applied. Work done partly for Armira's own reassurance was discounted, and lower hourly rates were applied, keeping the foreign fees below the Singapore award.

Relying on Cristovao v Tan & Tan Lawyers Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 41, the court held the other indemnity was independent, so there was no double recovery, and accepted Armira's proposal to apply it first to its unrecovered costs.

The Assistant Registrar ordered costs for the Singapore lawyers' work at S$250,000 plus GST of S$21,096.40, S$4,000 plus S$4,645.18 and English fees of £8,400 and £3,000 for the assessment, disbursements of S$10,058.87, and £98,070.38 plus VAT for Fieldfisher's fees with £12,910.21 in Belgian disbursements. The other party's indemnity was not deducted.