Arbiters Inc Law Corporation v De Beaute (SSC) Pte Ltd

Arbiters Inc Law Corporation acted for De Beaute (SSC) Pte Ltd, a spa and wellness business, in District Court Suit No 2892 of 2020, De Beaute's claim against an ex-employee for breaches of employment. The law firm rendered eight invoices for work done between 23 February 2023 and 27 September 2023, the stage between discovery and the exchange of affidavits of evidence-in-chief (AEICs). The trial judge decided on 22 October 2024 that the invoices should be taxed, and Gill J upheld that decision on 26 March 2025 on the firm's appeal.

On 25 August 2025 the Deputy Registrar taxed the solicitor and client bill, District Court Bill of Costs No 12 of 2025, reducing section 1 professional fees from $115,095.60 (later revised to $108,225) to $46,000. He made no order on section 2 costs for the taxation work, save that allocator and filing fees for the Registrar's Certificate could be claimed. The law firm applied for a review of the taxation.

1. Whether the section 1 professional fees for the AEIC stage were reasonable, and what sum should be allowed
2. Whether separate costs should be allowed for the pre-trial conferences and the two interlocutory applications
3. Whether the firm should be refused the fees for extracting the Registrar's Certificate under section 2

A taxation review is heard afresh, so the judge was free to substitute his own figure. Applying Lin Jian Wei, he weighed complexity, the work reasonably required and proportionality. Approved solicitor and client costs are presumed reasonable, but that presumption can be rebutted by a finding that they were excessive.

Several things pointed to a lower figure. Gill J had already found the claimed amounts plainly excessive and the suit less complex than the firm made out. After the Deputy Registrar's decision, the trial judge fixed party-and-party costs of all pre-trial work at $28,000; taking roughly half of that for the AEIC stage and doubling it for the solicitor and client uplift gave approximately $28,000, which the judge saw as consistent with $30,000. The guidelines in Appendix H of the State Courts Practice Directions 2021, used by analogy although they apply only to cases under the Rules of Court 2021, likewise supported $30,000 as not unreasonable. The firm's own engagement letter had estimated $70,000 for the AEIC stage through to trial and closing submissions, and on De Beaute's breakdown $30,000 of that related to the AEIC stage. With three approaches converging, $30,000 was fair.

The three pre-trial conferences were part of the AEIC stage and attracted no separate costs, but the applications to amend and extend time justified $4,000, given that $3,000 had been awarded on a party-and-party basis. On section 2, the judge declined to strip out the certificate fees, because the firm did not have the Costs Award when it filed its bill, and the disallowance of the other section 2 costs already reflected the heavy taxing down.

The court dismissed the review application and went further than the Deputy Registrar, taxing section 1 costs down to $34,000. The Deputy Registrar's decision on section 2 costs stood. Costs of the review were fixed at $4,500, inclusive of disbursements, payable to De Beaute.