Samwoh Asphalt v Sum Cheong: Review of Taxation of Costs in Performance Bond Call Dispute
In Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd v Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd and Ecics-Coface Guarantee Co, the High Court of Singapore reviewed the taxation of costs awarded to the second defendants, Ecics-Coface Guarantee Co, in a dispute arising from the first defendants', Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd, call on a performance bond. The plaintiffs, Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd, had unsuccessfully sought an injunction against the call at first instance, but succeeded on appeal. The first defendants were ordered to pay costs to both the plaintiffs and the second defendants. The court found the $20,000 costs awarded to the second defendants excessive, considering their neutral role as bondsmen, and reduced the award to $5,000.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for review of taxation of costs allowed; costs awarded to the second defendants reduced from $20,000 to $5,000.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Review of taxation of costs in a dispute over a performance bond call. The court reduced costs awarded to a neutral bondsman.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial | Partial | |
| Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Lost | Lost | K Sureshan |
| Ecics-Coface Guarantee Co | Defendant | Corporation | Partial | Partial | Christopher Chong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| K Sureshan | David Lim & Partners |
| Christopher Chong | Wong Partnership |
4. Facts
- The first defendants called upon a performance bond given by the plaintiffs.
- The second defendants were the bondsman.
- The plaintiffs challenged the call and applied for an injunction to restrain the call on the ground of unconscionability.
- The application was dismissed at first instance but the plaintiffs succeeded on appeal.
- The first defendants were ordered to pay costs of the plaintiffs as well as the second defendants.
- The second defendants adopted a neutral position after the case was properly considered and on advice by their solicitors.
- The second defendants had substantially reimbursed the plaintiffs money paid by the latter to them consequent upon the discharge of the interim injunction by the judge at first instance.
5. Formal Citations
- Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd v Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 245/2001; BOC 386/2002; SIC 5567/2002, [2003] SGHC 2
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit filed (Suit 245/2001) | |
| BOC 386/2002 filed | |
| SIC 5567/2002 filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Taxation of Costs
- Outcome: The court found the costs awarded to the second defendants excessive and reduced the award.
- Category: Procedural
- Unconscionability
- Outcome: The court of appeal allowed the appeal on the ground of unconscionability.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction
- Review of Taxation of Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
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
- Performance Bond
- Taxation of Costs
- Unconscionability
- Bondsman
- Neutral Party
15.2 Keywords
- costs
- taxation
- performance bond
- unconscionability
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Taxation
- Contract Law
- Performance Bonds