Tan Boon Hai v Lee Ah Fong: Review of Registrar's Taxation of Costs Under Rules of Court

In Tan Boon Hai v Lee Ah Fong, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding the decision of GP Selvam J on the review of taxation of costs under Order 59 Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. The underlying dispute arose from the Singapore Hainan Hwee Kuan 1999/2000 Management Committee Elections, where Tan Boon Hai, representing unsuccessful candidates, challenged the election results. The action was discontinued with Tan Boon Hai paying 80% of the costs. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judge's awarded amount of $100,000, and reinstated the assistant registrar's amount of $70,000.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal addressed the nature of a judge's jurisdiction in reviewing taxation of costs under O 59 r 36 of the Rules of Court.

1.7 Decision Date

26 November 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Boon Hai	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Yang Ing Loong, Christopher Tan Teow Hin
Lee Ah Fong	Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Lee Chin Seon, John Tan Kim Chiang

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Lai Kew Chai	Judge	No
L P Thean	Justice of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Yang Ing Loong	Allen & Gledhill
Christopher Tan Teow Hin	Allen & Gledhill
Lee Chin Seon	Angela Wong & Co
John Tan Kim Chiang	Angela Wong & Co

4. Facts

A dispute arose over the election of members to the management committee of the Singapore Hainan Hwee Kuan.
Mr. Tan, representing unsuccessful candidates, initiated proceedings against the association and 33 members.
Mr. Tan sought a declaration that the election held on 30 May 1999 was null and void for irregularity.
An interim order was obtained by Mr. Tan partially freezing the association’s bank account.
The action was discontinued by Mr. Tan with the consent of the defendants, subject to Mr. Tan paying 80% of the costs.
The parties failed to reach agreement on the quantum of the costs, and accordingly the costs had to be taxed.
The assistant registrar reduced the amount to $70,000 on review.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Boon Hai v Lee Ah Fong, CA 600043/2001, [2001] SGCA 77

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1999-05-30	Annual General Meeting held
1999-07-29	Interim order obtained by Mr. Tan partially freezing the association’s bank account
2001-11-27	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Review of Registrar's Taxation of Costs
- Outcome: The court held that a judge on hearing an application for review of taxation of costs under O 59 r 36 hears the matter de novo, and is not fettered by the discretion exercised by the registrar.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Judge's discretion in reviewing registrar's decision
  - Interference with registrar's decision on quantum
  - Application of O 59 r 36 of the Rules of Court
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 2 SLR 496
  - [1993] 1 SLR 542
  - [1993] 1 SLR 185
  - [1993] 3 All ER 20
  - [1993] 1 WLR 989
  - [1999] 1 SLR 82
  - [1937] AC 473
  - [1937] 2 All ER 646
  - [1940] MLJ 4
  - [1972-1974] SLR 440
  - [1952] MLJ 99
  - [1941] MLJ 207
  - [1958] 1 All ER 578
  - [1958] 1 WLR 314
  - [1984] 2 All ER 439
  - [1984] 1 WLR 994
  - [1997] 1 All ER 714
  - [1997] 1 WLR 785
  - [1885] 29 Ch D 50
  - [1999] 2 SLR 246
  - [2001] 4 SLR 593
  - [1946] 46 SR (NSW) 318
  - [1936] WN 205

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the election held on 30 May 1999 was null and void for irregularity
Order restraining the 33 members from acting or holding themselves out as members of the association`s management committee
Order for a fresh election to be held
Order to freeze the funds of the association

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Taxation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tan Boon Hai v Lee Ah Fong	High Court	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 496	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from.
Diversey (Far East) v Chai Chung Ching Chester (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 542	Singapore	Cited as a previous decision of the court regarding the review of taxation of costs, but ultimately departed from in the present judgment.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 185	Singapore	Cited as a previous decision of the court regarding the review of taxation of costs, but ultimately departed from in the present judgment.
Madurasinghe v Penguin Electronics (a firm)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 All ER 20	England	Relied upon by the judge in the decision below, regarding the interpretation of a similar rule under the County Court Rules 1981 in England.
Madurasinghe v Penguin Electronics (a firm)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 989	England	Relied upon by the judge in the decision below, regarding the interpretation of a similar rule under the County Court Rules 1981 in England.
Chang Ah Lek v Lim Ah Koon	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 82	Singapore	Followed and adopted the decision of the House of Lords in Evans v Bartlam regarding the power of a judge in dealing with an appeal from the decision of the registrar on assessment of damages.
Evans v Bartlam	House of Lords	Yes	[1937] AC 473	England	Decision of the House of Lords regarding the power of a judge in dealing with an appeal from the decision of the registrar on assessment of damages.
Evans v Bartlam	House of Lords	Yes	[1937] 2 All ER 646	England	Decision of the House of Lords regarding the power of a judge in dealing with an appeal from the decision of the registrar on assessment of damages.
Re Kana Moona Syed Abubakar, decd, Khatijah Nachiar v Sultan Allaudin	High Court	Yes	[1940] MLJ 4	Malaysia	The starting point for the rule that a judge must not interfere with the decision of a taxing officer on a mere question of quantum, unless very exceptional circumstances are present.
Starlite Ceramic Industry v Hiap Huat Pottery	High Court	Yes	[1972-1974] SLR 440	Singapore	Followed Aitken J's pronouncement in Re Kana Moona Syed Abubakar, decd, Khatijah Nachiar v Sultan Allaudin that the court will not interfere with the discretion of the taxing officer upon a mere question of quantum if the taxing officer has exercised his discretion after considering all the circumstances and if no question of principle arises.
Chin Cham Sen v Foo Chee Sang	High Court	Yes	[1952] MLJ 99	Malaysia	Expressed the same view as in Starlite Ceramic Industry v Hiap Huat Pottery that the court will not interfere with the discretion of a taxing officer upon a mere question of quantum if the taxing officer has exercised his discretion after consideration of all the circumstances and if no question of principle arises.
Malayan Trading Co v Lee Pak Yin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1941] MLJ 207	Malaysia	Expressed similar views as in Chin Cham Sen v Foo Chee Sang that it is only when such discretion has been exercised on a wrong principle or the quantum allowed is obviously wrong that a judge will interfere.
Gorfin v Odhams Press	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1958] 1 All ER 578	England	The court will only interfere with the exercise of the master's discretion if it is clear that the master has gone wrong in principle.
Gorfin v Odhams Press	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1958] 1 WLR 314	England	The court will only interfere with the exercise of the master's discretion if it is clear that the master has gone wrong in principle.
Hart v Aga Khan Foundation (UK)	Unknown	Yes	[1984] 2 All ER 439	England	The judge was plainly wrong in believing himself to be bound by Hart v Aga Khan Foundation (UK) only to interfere if he thought that the registrar or district judge had not taken into account something he ought to have taken into account or had taken into account an irrelevant matter or that his opinion was clearly wrong.
Hart v Aga Khan Foundation (UK)	Unknown	Yes	[1984] 1 WLR 994	England	The judge was plainly wrong in believing himself to be bound by Hart v Aga Khan Foundation (UK) only to interfere if he thought that the registrar or district judge had not taken into account something he ought to have taken into account or had taken into account an irrelevant matter or that his opinion was clearly wrong.
Kawarindrasingh v White	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 All ER 714	England	On an application for review of taxation of costs, the judge had, in accordance with O 38 r 24(6) of the County Court Rules 1981, all such powers and discretion as were vested in the district judge, and that in that case the judge had misdirected himself.
Kawarindrasingh v White	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 WLR 785	England	On an application for review of taxation of costs, the judge had, in accordance with O 38 r 24(6) of the County Court Rules 1981, all such powers and discretion as were vested in the district judge, and that in that case the judge had misdirected himself.
Gardner v Jay	Unknown	Yes	[1885] 29 Ch D 50	England	When a tribunal is invested by Act of Parliament or by Rules with a discretion, without any indication in the Act or Rules of the grounds upon which the discretion is to be exercised, it is a mistake to lay down any rules with a view of indicating the particular grooves in which the discretion should run, for if the Act or the Rules did not fetter the discretion of the Judge why should the Court do so?
Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 246	Singapore	Reaffirmed what was decided in Chang Ah Lek regarding cases of appeal to the judge from the decisions of the registrar on assessment of damages.
Singapore Airlines v Tan Shwu Leng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 593	Singapore	Reaffirmed what was decided in Chang Ah Lek regarding cases of appeal to the judge from the decisions of the registrar on assessment of damages.
Re Will of FB Gilbert (decd)	Unknown	Yes	[1946] 46 SR (NSW) 318	New South Wales	There is a material difference between an exercise of discretion on a point of practice or procedure and an exercise of discretion which determines substantive rights.
Cooper v Cooper	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1936] WN 205	England	Where there is a discretionary jurisdiction given to the Court or a judge the judge in Chambers is in no way fettered by the previous exercise of the Master`s discretion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court O 59 r 36	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Taxation of costs
Review of taxation
Rules of Court O 59 r 36
Registrar's discretion
Judge's discretion
Quantum of costs
Bill of costs
Sea of change
Stare decisis

15.2 Keywords

Taxation
Costs
Civil Procedure
Singapore
Rules of Court
Registrar
Judge
Discretion

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Costs
Taxation

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Taxation of Costs