Background
This was a costs decision following an assessment of damages proceeding and two related summonses. In the underlying assessment, the court assessed damages at US$10,126,158.43, with interest at 5.33% per annum from 13 September 2023 until payment. The assessment concerned novel cryptocurrency-valuation issues.
The claimants had also brought an uncontested summons for directions on the assessment. The defendant separately sought permission for two witnesses to give oral evidence by video link; it succeeded only in part. The parties disputed the appropriate costs for the assessment and whether the defendant should bear a filing fee incurred after the claimants filed an affidavit exhibiting an unnotarised affidavit from their principal witness.
The Court’s Holding
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin fixed the claimants’ costs for the assessment at S$88,490.37, including S$40,000 for pre-trial work, S$16,000 for the one-and-a-half-day hearing, S$20,000 for post-trial work, and S$12,490.37 in disbursements. The court placed the pre- and post-trial costs above the lower end of the applicable ranges because of the case’s complexity and its novel cryptocurrency-valuation issues.
The court disallowed S$4,155.60 from the claimants’ claimed disbursements: the filing fee for an affidavit that exhibited an unnotarised affidavit because a notarised version could not be obtained in time. It held that the defendant should not bear that cost. It awarded the claimants S$2,213.20 for the uncontested directions summons and awarded the defendant S$2,000 for its partially successful video-link summons.
Key Takeaways
- Complex and novel cryptocurrency-valuation issues justified higher pre- and post-trial costs within the applicable commercial assessment ranges.
- A party will not necessarily recover costs caused by its inability to secure proper evidence in time.
- After setting off the defendant’s S$2,000 costs award, the defendant was ordered to pay the claimants S$88,703.57.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how Singapore’s High Court applies the costs ranges for commercial assessments of damages to technically novel disputes. Complexity may warrant increased costs, but recoverable disbursements remain subject to scrutiny and must fairly be borne by the opposing party.
It also illustrates the practical significance of discrete costs orders in related interlocutory applications: partial success can produce an award for the applicant even where the claimant obtains the principal costs award.