Marketlend Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Marketlend Pty Ltd and Australian Executor Trustees Limited sued QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd under a trade credit insurance policy, claiming US$9,035,365.38. The suit began in the General Division of the High Court as HC/OC 405/2022 and was transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court around 25 September 2023, where it became SIC/OA 16/2023. After a seven-day trial the court dismissed the claims in Marketlend Pty Ltd and another v QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC(I) 1, having found that the claim rested on a series of fictitious trades.

This judgment, decided on written submissions without an oral hearing, dealt only with the amount of QBE's costs, since it was accepted that QBE as the successful party was entitled to costs. QBE claimed S$2,616,897.26 in total: S$232,747.87 for the period before transfer, S$2,348,149.39 after transfer, and S$36,000 for preparing its costs submissions. The claimants said this was unprecedented and disproportionate, and proposed S$35,000 before transfer, S$1,141,563.66 after transfer, and S$10,000 for the costs submissions.

1. Whether pre-transfer costs should depart upward from the Appendix G guideline range.
2. Whether the defendant should recover all of its post-transfer legal fees as reasonable costs.
3. Whether the defendant's expert disbursements, including those of J S Held, should be allowed in full.

Before transfer, the Rules of Court 2021 apply an objective standard, with Appendix G as the starting point and the burden on the party seeking an uplift. QBE's method of taking S$50,000 and applying a multiplier of four was unexplained, and its actual costs were strictly beside the point. Its complaints about the claimants' disclosure could not be verified. But the case was out of the norm for QBE, which had to investigate fictitious trades entirely outside its own knowledge, and the pleadings were substantial with eight case conferences. Some uplift above the Appendix G range was justified, and S$100,000 plus GST was allowed.

After transfer, the SICC Rules allow costs that reflect what was incurred, subject to proportionality and reasonableness. Following Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2023] 1 SLR 96, a successful party recovers only reasonable costs, not whatever it spent. QBE gave a detailed schedule but little to show the costs were reasonable. The court took account of the minor defences QBE lost, the confusion caused by its pleaded definition of a "genuine physical trade", the unproven Sujana allegations, and expert evidence that was largely inadmissible or irrelevant. Going stage by stage, it allowed the non-party disclosure and evidence applications in full but halved the cost of the pre-case conference questionnaire, reduced witness statement costs to reflect counsel's work on the 4220-page statement of Mr Vickers, cut expert evidence costs to S$25,000, and reduced trial preparation and attendance, finding the hours claimed over a short trial very large.

On disbursements, 40% of the experts' fees was allowed and the disbursements of the expert services firm J S Held, of which Mr Vickers is managing director, on the Sujana issue were disallowed entirely, with other disbursements agreed. The court was satisfied the total was proportionate and reasonable.

The court ordered the claimants to pay the defendant costs of S$100,000 for the pre-transfer stage, S$1,366,831.90 for the post-transfer stage including disbursements, and S$10,000 for the costs submissions, a total of S$1,476,831.90 plus GST where applicable.