Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others

Mr Mah Kiat Seng, acting in person, sued the Attorney-General and two police officers, Mohamed Rosli bin Mohamed and Tan Thiam Chin Lawrence, in Suit No 256 of 2020. In Mah Kiat Seng v Attorney-General and others [2023] SGHC 14, the High Court found for Mr Mah on his claim against Rosli for unlawful apprehension and against the Singapore Police Force over the search of his person and bag, but dismissed his assault claim against Tan and his other claims against the police force. His damages were within $20,000.

The judge then heard the parties on costs and gave a written decision because the principles for assessing the costs of a litigant in person had little authority. The Attorney-General argued that costs should follow the event on each claim and sought $35,000 for the defence of Tan and $50,000 for the defence of the police force. Mr Mah argued that the core of his case was wrongful arrest, on which he succeeded, so he should be treated as the successful party overall, and he said he had spent about 1,000 hours on the case.

1. Whether costs should follow the event separately against each defendant where the plaintiff succeeded against some defendants but not others.
2. How the costs of a litigant in person should be assessed under O 59 r 18A of the Rules of Court.
3. What costs the jointly represented defendants should recover for the claims on which they succeeded.

On incidence, looking at the thrust of a case suits several claims against one defendant, but where a plaintiff sues two defendants and wins against only one, the event is judged defendant by defendant. Mr Mah therefore had his costs against Rosli and paid Tan's costs. The police force was successful overall, though his partial success on the search reduced its costs.

On Mr Mah's costs, the rule allows a litigant in person costs that reasonably compensate for time spent and expenses reasonably incurred. The case could have been brought in the Magistrate's Court, but the judge used his discretion not to cap costs at that scale because the case was not straightforward. No time sheets were needed; using its own experience, the court estimated a reasonable 460 hours and attributed 70% to the successful claims, giving 322 hours. For the hourly rate, proportionality made the Magistrate's Court scale a reference point: about $100 per hour for a lawyer, discounted by a third to remove the profit margin a litigant in person may not earn, giving $66.66, rounded down to $60.

On the defendants' costs, the High Court guidelines applied because Mr Mah chose that court. As the defendants shared lawyers, there was one set of costs to apportion, to avoid double counting. The case belonged in the Torts category rather than Simple Torts, and the judge took $160,000 as a reasonable amount for the whole matter, of which the successful defence claims made up 30%. The apparent mismatch with Mr Mah's award was explained by the rule that litigants in person must not profit from costs and by the different reference scales.

The High Court ordered costs of $19,320 to Mr Mah and costs of $48,000 to the defendants, which could be split as $22,000 for the claims against Tan and $26,000 for the remaining claims. Mr Mah was to have 70% of his reasonable disbursements and the Attorney-General 30%, with disputes to go to the Registrar if not agreed within 14 days. The judge declined to stop interest running on the unpaid damages, noting they could be set off against the costs owed by Mr Mah.