Mero Asia Pacific v Takenaka Corp: Review of Taxation of Costs for Adjourned Arbitration Hearing
In a dispute between Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and Takenaka Corp regarding a sub-contract at Changi International Airport, the High Court of Singapore reviewed the assistant registrar's taxation of costs thrown away to Mero Asia Pacific after an arbitration hearing was adjourned due to a late amendment by Takenaka Corp. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Choo Han Teck, allowed Takenaka Corp's application in part, reducing the costs awarded for legal representation and witness expenses, finding the original amounts excessive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed in part; costs reduced.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Review of taxation of costs thrown away in an arbitration between Mero Asia Pacific and Takenaka Corp, focusing on lawyer's hourly rate and witness costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Costs reduced | Partial | |
| Takenaka Corp | Respondent | Corporation | Application allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Liam Beng | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Kenneth Koh | UniLegal LLC |
4. Facts
- Arbitration was scheduled for 17 days between 8 July 2002 and 29 July 2002.
- The arbitration concerned a sub-contract for a project at Changi International Airport.
- The sub-contract sum was about $18,000,000.
- The claim was for $3,805,000 and the respondent's counter-claim was for $3,080,000.
- The hearing was adjourned due to a late amendment by the respondents.
- The claimants asked for costs amounting to $85,176, being 90% of Mr. Tan's charge-out rate of $600.
- The assistant registrar allowed a total of $15,392 for the two witnesses.
5. Formal Citations
- Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp, BOC 261/2002, SIC 3475/2002, 3660/2002, [2002] SGHC 228
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitrator took off 13 days from the scheduled hearing. | |
| Arbitration scheduled to begin. | |
| Arbitration resumed for one day and was adjourned again. | |
| Arbitration scheduled to end. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Arbitration adjourned to November 2002. |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxation of Costs
- Outcome: The court reduced the costs awarded for legal representation and witness expenses, finding the original amounts excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Excessive lawyer's hourly rate
- Inclusion of getting up costs
- Excessive witness costs
- Related Cases:
- Engelin Teh & Partners v Shoba Gunasekaran, Bill of Costs 1/2002
- Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock [1983] 2 MLJ xciv
- New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd v Ng Whye Keng [1978] 2 MLJ xxiv
- Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927
8. Remedies Sought
- Review of taxation of costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engelin Teh & Partners v Shoba Gunasekaran | N/A | No | Engelin Teh & Partners v Shoba Gunasekaran, Bill of Costs 1/2002 | Singapore | Cited to compare the hourly rate of an assistant counsel to that of the claimant's counsel. |
| Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock | N/A | No | Choo Ah Kiat v Ang Kim Hock [1983] 2 MLJ xciv | N/A | Cited regarding whether costs thrown away should include getting up costs. |
| New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd v Ng Whye Keng | N/A | No | New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd v Ng Whye Keng [1978] 2 MLJ xxiv | N/A | Cited in relation to the inclusion of getting-up fees in costs thrown away. |
| Petrunic v Barnes | N/A | Yes | Petrunic v Barnes [1989] VR 927 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that a witness is entitled to claim expenses for time spent in giving evidence and for being present to instruct counsel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Costs thrown away
- Getting up costs
- Taxation of costs
- Arbitration
- Adjournment
- Charge-out rate
- Witness costs
15.2 Keywords
- costs
- arbitration
- adjournment
- taxation
- legal fees
- witness costs
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 85 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Arbitration