Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG: Costs Allocation & Court's Power to Clarify Orders
In Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Anthony Wee Soon Kim to set aside a Court of Appeal order regarding costs. The application stemmed from an unsuccessful appeal by Godfrey Gerald QC, for whom Mr. Wee sought admission as an advocate and solicitor. The Court of Appeal clarified that Mr. Wee was personally liable for the costs of the appeal. Mr. Wee argued that the court was functus officio and that the procedure for extracting the order was incorrect. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the Court of Appeal had the inherent power to clarify its orders and that Mr. Wee was the de facto applicant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to set aside Court of Appeal order. Court clarifies order for costs against de facto applicant, affirming inherent power to clarify.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Won | Won | |
| The Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Won | Won | Wilson Hue of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| UBS AG | Respondent | Corporation | Won | Won | |
| Anthony Wee Soon Kim | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Godfrey Gerald QC | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| V K Rajah | JC | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Laurence Goh | Laurence Goh Eng Yau and Co |
| Wilson Hue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Hri Kumar | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Lim Chor Pee | Chor Pee and Partners |
4. Facts
- Mr. Wee sought to have Mr. Godfrey QC admitted to represent him in Suit 834.
- Tay J dismissed the application and ordered Mr. Wee to pay costs to UBS.
- Mr. Goh discharged himself as counsel for Mr. Godfrey QC and Mr. Wee.
- Mr. Wee argued the appeal in person.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondents.
- The respondents sought to perfect the order, holding Mr. Wee personally liable for costs.
- The Court of Appeal clarified that Mr. Wee was to pay the costs of the appeal personally.
5. Formal Citations
- Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and Others, SIC 3323/2004, CA 114/2002, [2004] SGHC 187
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit 834 filed by Mr. Wee against UBS AG | |
| Originating Motion No 22 of 2002 filed by Mr. Gerald Godfrey QC for admission as advocate and solicitor | |
| Mr. Godfrey QC’s appeal hearing | |
| AGC sought the Court of Appeal’s clarification about the purport of the disputed order | |
| Court of Appeal declared that Mr Anthony Wee was to pay the costs of the appeal personally | |
| High Court dismissed the application |
7. Legal Issues
- Costs
- Outcome: The court held that Mr. Wee, as the de facto applicant, should bear the costs of the unsuccessful application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Liability for costs
- Principles for awarding costs
- Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that it possessed the inherent jurisdiction to clarify the terms of its order, even after the order was pronounced.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Functus officio
- Inherent jurisdiction of the court
- Judgments and Orders
- Outcome: The court held that the procedure for party approval of a draft order only applies when a party is represented by a solicitor.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Perfecting orders
- Draft order approval process
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the order of the Court of Appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Godfrey Gerald, Queen’s Counsel v UBS AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 306 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that Mr. Wee would argue the appeal in person. |
| Re Reid James Robert QC | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 482 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the judge ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondents. |
| Re Gore Daniel Richard QC | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR 478 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the judge ordered the applicant to pay costs to the respondents. |
| The Karting Club of Singapore v David Mak | Unknown | Yes | The Karting Club of Singapore v David Mak (Wee Soon Kim Anthony, Intervener) | Singapore | Cited to support the court's decision to hold Mr. Wee personally liable for costs because he was responsible for initiating an unwarranted application. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 2 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 42 rr 8(1) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 42 r 8(5) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 92 r 5 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 92 r 4 of the RSC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 21 Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Functus officio
- De facto applicant
- Ad hoc admission
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Perfecting order
- Costs
- Queen's Counsel
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Functus officio
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Legal Profession Act
- Rules of Court
- Queen's Counsel
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Costs | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Functus Officio | 70 |
| Jurisdiction | 60 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
| Judicial Review | 25 |
| Summary Judgement | 20 |
| Company Law | 15 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Jurisdiction of Courts