Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy: Apportionment of Costs and Court's Discretion in Civil Procedure

In Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy, the Court of Appeal of Singapore delivered a judgment on October 12, 2001, addressing consequential orders and costs following a prior judgment. The court considered arguments regarding the transfer of property, costs to WLAW, and claims of RHB in Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2000, making specific consequential orders regarding the sale of property and apportionment of outgoings. In Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2000, the court addressed the issue of costs, considering the conduct of Mr. Wong and Mr. Ponniah, and ultimately decided to make no order as to costs, citing their conduct as contributing to the litigation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; no order as to costs for Civil Appeal No. 167 of 2000. Consequential orders made for Civil Appeal No. 164 of 2000.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding cost apportionment. The court considered conduct of parties leading to litigation when deciding costs, denying costs to successful appellant.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ho Kon KimAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
Lim Gek Kim BetsyRespondentIndividualAppeal deniedLost
WLAWRespondentLaw FirmCosts awardedWon
RHBRespondentCorporationCosts order upheldLost
Mr. WongAppellantIndividualNo order as to costsNeutral
Mr. PonniahAppellantIndividualNo order as to costsNeutral
Tan Kok Quan PartnershipRespondentPartnershipAppeal deniedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Josephine LowMichael Khoo & Partners
Michael KhooMichael Khoo & Partners
Gn Chiang SoonM Dass & Co
M AmaladassM Dass & Co
SivakolunthuM Dass & Co
Lionel TayKhattar Wong & Partners
Leslie ChewKhattar Wong & Partners
Esther LingKhattar Wong & Partners
Chew Kei-JinTan Rajah & Cheah
CR RajahTan Rajah & Cheah
Chia Boon TeckTan Kok Quan Partnership
Tan Kok QuanTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Madam Ho entered into a sale agreement with Ms. Lim.
  2. RHB took a mortgage of the property, recognizing Madam Ho's interest.
  3. Madam Ho's claim against WLAW was dismissed in the court below.
  4. Mr. Wong handled the transaction for Madam Ho.
  5. Mr. Ponniah prosecuted the claim for Madam Ho.
  6. The judge below was critical of Mr. Wong and Mr. Ponniah's conduct.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and another appeal and Others, CA 164/2000, 167/2000, [2001] SGCA 67

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Judgment delivered inviting parties to submit written arguments
Civil Appeal No. 164/2000 filed
Civil Appeal No. 167/2000 filed
Madam Ho's solicitors served the Case for the Appellant on WLAW's solicitors
Judgment delivered on consequential orders and costs

7. Legal Issues

  1. Apportionment of Costs
    • Outcome: The court declined to apportion costs equally between parties, upholding the order for joint and several liability.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Joint and several liability
  2. Discretion of Court in Awarding Costs
    • Outcome: The court exercised its discretion to deny costs to a successful appellant due to their conduct leading to the litigation.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Elgindata (No. 2)N/AYes[1993] 1 All ER 232N/ACited for the general principle that costs are in the discretion of the court and should follow the event unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
Tullio v MaoroCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the general principle that costs are in the discretion of the court and should follow the event unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
Bostock v Ramsey Urban District CouncilN/AYes[1900] 2 QB 616N/ACited for the principle that the court can consider conduct prior to litigation when deciding on costs.
Lee Seng Choon Ronnie v Singapore Island Country ClubCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 456SingaporeCited as an example where a successful appellant was deprived of costs due to their conduct.
Universal Westech (S) Pte Ltd v Ng Thiam Kiat & OrsHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 139SingaporeCited as an example where a successful defendant was deprived of costs due to their conduct.
Ng Thiam Kiat & Ors v Universal Westech (S) Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR 419SingaporeCited to show that the High Court's decision on costs was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Costs
  • Apportionment
  • Discretion of court
  • Joint and several liability
  • Mortgagee in possession
  • Consequential orders

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • apportionment
  • civil procedure
  • court discretion
  • litigation
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Civil Practice75
Property Law30
Banking and Finance25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Real Property