Background
Chong Jorina advanced loans totalling over S$1.6 million to Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios Ltda between June 2018 and November 2019. She alleged these loans were made in reliance on false representations by the second defendant (Chong Kwai Leng Helen), claiming liability for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. The claimant withdrew the conspiracy claim during closing submissions.
In the principal judgment dated 2 June 2026 ([2026] SGHC 120), Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy dismissed all claims against the second defendant. The judge found: (1) the representations were either not made or not attributable to the defendant; (2) the claimant failed to prove the dishonest state of mind required for fraudulent misrepresentation; (3) the claimant was not induced by and did not rely on the alleged representations; and (4) no duty of care arose. This costs judgment addresses the defendant’s entitlement to recover legal costs.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Coomaraswamy awarded the defendant total costs of S$244,165.50, comprising S$215,000 in action costs, S$20,494.90 in agreed disbursements, and S$8,670.60 for two interlocutory applications. The judgment departed from the Supreme Court Practice Directions’ Costs Guidelines in several respects, but only where justified by case-specific complexity.
On pre-trial costs, the court fixed S$85,000 (departing upward from the S$25,000–S$70,000 guideline range) due to: (1) the substantial volume of documentary material (over 16 volumes, approximately 9,000 pages); (2) two specific legal complexities—a novel question regarding whether statements purely as to the future are actionable in negligence, and the need to address the alternative conspiracy claim; and (3) the defendant’s burden in preparing three substantial affidavits of evidence-in-chief totalling over 1,400 pages. The court rejected the claimant’s argument that the documents were voluminous only in form, not substance, finding that reviewing a decade of events, multiple bank accounts, and years of WhatsApp messages required substantial analysis.
For trial costs (5 days), the court awarded S$80,000 (S$16,000 per day, the maximum under guidelines), reflecting the intensity of the trial and the work reasonably necessary to execute pre-trial preparation. The court declined to award the defendant’s claimed S$110,000 (S$22,000 per day), holding that factors such as documentary volume and lengthy affidavits were already accounted for in the pre-trial costs award and should not justify a second departure. Post-trial costs were fixed at S$50,000, agreed by both parties, reflecting the range and content of the defendant’s written and oral closing submissions.
Critically, Justice Coomaraswamy rejected the claimant’s arguments for reducing the defendant’s costs. The claimant’s settlement overtures (mediation in April 2024 and settlement exchanges in October 2024 and April 2025) received no weight—the court reasoned that since the claimant lost outright, any settlement likely would have required the defendant to pay a non-zero sum, and the defendant’s refusal to settle proved reasonable given the complete vindication at trial. Similarly, the court held that the defendant’s evasiveness as a witness and alleged disclosure failures did not justify cost reduction, as these matters would affect overall costs assessments rather than justify reducing the award.
Key Takeaways
- Departures from cost guidelines are justified only by inherent case complexity or guideline inadequacy; exceeding the guideline maximum by one-third does not automatically constitute indemnity costs in substance.
- The burden of proof difference between standard and indemnity costs is the substantive distinction; the “one-third uplift” is merely a practical quantification rule and does not convert a reasonable award to indemnity-basis assessment.
- Settlement overtures by the losing party do not reduce the winner’s costs award, particularly where the losing party receives no vindication at trial.
- Factors justifying pre-trial cost departures (such as documentary volume) should not be recycled to justify separate departures at the trial stage.
- An award of costs is compensatory in purpose, not punitive; improper conduct may limit costs but should not inflate awards to discipline the unsuccessful party.
Why It Matters
This judgment provides authoritative guidance on the Singapore courts’ approach to costs assessment following unsuccessful litigation. It clarifies that the Costs Guidelines are starting points, not ceilings, and that courts retain discretion to award reasonable costs for work reasonably incurred, even if exceeding guideline maxima. Practitioners must carefully articulate case-specific complexity to justify departures, and cannot rely on formulaic multipliers across different litigation stages.
The judgment also signals judicial resistance to using cost awards as a disciplinary tool for party misconduct. While adverse findings regarding witness credibility or disclosure compliance may inform overall costs assessments, they will not automatically reduce a successful party’s recovery. This reinforces that costs awards serve the compensatory aim of the indemnity principle—making the winner whole for reasonable expenses—rather than punishing the loser’s litigation conduct.