Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth v Tan Chor Chuan: Review of Costs in Defamation Action

In Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth and Others v Tan Chor Chuan and Others, the High Court of Singapore reviewed the taxation of costs following an unsuccessful defamation action. The plaintiffs, members of the Singapore Chess Federation, had sued the defendants. The court considered whether it could reduce costs due to the defendants succeeding on only one of three defenses. The court ultimately decided it lacked the power to further reduce costs and that no reduction was warranted, given the circumstances.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The court decided that it did not have the power to allow a further reduction on account of the failed defenses. The court also decided that, even if it were open to it to grant a reduction, no reduction ought to be allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Review of costs in a defamation action where the defendants succeeded on only one of three defenses. The court disallowed a reduction in costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nicholas Giles AplinPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Chia Chung Mun AlphonsusPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Goh Hin TiangPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Seow YongliPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Rolles Rudolf Jurgen AugustDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Tan Yeow Hiang KennethPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Chan Lai FungPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Tan Lian AnnPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Yeo Kok Ching AlanPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Chong Yeh Shen JasonPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Lim Ting Fai LawrencePlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Wong Loong TatPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Tan Chor ChuanDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Yap Swee CheeDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Ee Boon Peng LawrenceDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Ong Chong GheeDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Chern Seng PauDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Yung Yew KongDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Nelly MenonDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial
Tan Lian SengDefendantIndividualApplication Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gregory VijayendranWong Partnership
Prakash PillaiWong Partnership
Raymond WongWong Thomas and Leong
Alvin TanWong Thomas and Leong

4. Facts

  1. Nine members of the Singapore Chess Federation brought a defamation action against eleven members of the SCF Executive Council.
  2. The court initially awarded the defendants 95% of their costs, deducting 5% due to disapproval of their conduct regarding discovery.
  3. The defendants succeeded on only one of three defenses pleaded.
  4. The plaintiffs sought a further reduction in costs due to the failed defenses.
  5. The Assistant Registrar declined to defer taxation or adopt an issue-based approach.
  6. The court had extracted the order of court dated 10 August 2005.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth and Others v Tan Chor Chuan and Others, BOC 206/2005, SIC 5052/2005, 5081/2005, [2005] SGHC 212

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Order for costs made by the court
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Taxation of Costs
    • Outcome: The court held that it did not have the power to allow a further reduction on account of the failed defenses.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Issue-based approach in taxation
      • Reduction in costs for failed defenses
  2. Defamation
    • Outcome: The underlying defamation action was unsuccessful.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AGCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 3SingaporeCited for the principle that a court can clarify an order without being functus officio, but cannot vary an extracted order.
Tullio v MaoroCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited for the principle that a successful party should not be deprived of costs unless they acted improperly or unreasonably.
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2)English Court of AppealYes[1993] 1 All ER 232England and WalesCited for the principles governing the award of costs, including that costs should follow the event unless the successful party raised issues that significantly increased the length of proceedings improperly or unreasonably.
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua BenjaminCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 337SingaporeCited for setting aside a trial judge's order awarding only 60% of costs to the plaintiff, who succeeded on the fundamental issue, even though some pleadings were not established.
MCST No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2002] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited for upholding the trial judge's decision to award full costs to the defendant, who succeeded on a late amendment to their counterclaim but failed on the original basis of their counterclaim.
Progress Software Corp (S) Pte Ltd v Central Provident Fund BoardCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR 156SingaporeCited to distinguish cases where the court expressed distaste for arguments raised by a party, leading to a refusal to award full costs, unlike the present case.
Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy (No 2)N/AYes[1998] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited as an example where the court expressly stated that the party had acted unreasonably in putting forward unmeritorious arguments.
Tan Tiang Hin Jerry v Singapore Medical CouncilN/AYes[2000] 2 SLR 274SingaporeCited as an example where the court expressly stated that the party had acted unreasonably in putting forward unmeritorious arguments.
Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim BetsyN/AYes[2001] 4 SLR 603SingaporeCited for the principle that the trial judge should have regard to the totality of the circumstances when awarding costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) O 92 r 5
Rules of Court O 59 r 27(2)
Rules of Court O 59 r 6A

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Taxation of costs
  • Issue-based approach
  • Functus officio
  • Fair comment
  • Qualified privilege
  • Defamation
  • Singapore Chess Federation
  • Assistant Registrar

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • taxation
  • defamation
  • civil procedure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs85
Civil Practice75
Assessment of Legal Costs70
Review60
Evidence Law40
Kompetenz-Kompetenz20
Garnishee Proceedings10
Duty of Candour10
Mistake10
Rescission10
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards10
Time-Fixing Order10
Offer to Settle10
Evidence10
Contract Law10
Submission to Jurisdiction10
Summary Judgement10
Crossclaims10
Disclosure of documents10
Peremptory orders10
Transnational issue estoppel10
Show cause action10
Affidavits10
Best Efforts Clause10
International Commercial Arbitration10
Contractual terms10
Recourse against award10
Lack of proper notice10
Infra petita10
Natural justice10
Admissibility of evidence10
Similar fact evidence10
Adverse inferences10
Sham Agreements10
Anti-suit injunction10
Natural forum10
Restraint of foreign proceedings10
Comity10
Vexatious and oppressive conduct10
Illegality and public policy10
Contractual discretions10
Separability10
Waiver of objections10
Consent Orders10
Service out of jurisdiction10
Amendment of Pleadings10
Estoppel10
Contentious Business Agreements10
Setting aside10
Apparent bias10
Foreign arbitral award10
Breach of unless order10
Production of documents10
Striking out10
Contempt of Court10
Civil Contempt10
Pre-judgment interest10
Waiver10
Contractual Interpretation10
Setting aside default judgment10
Stay of court proceedings10
Disputes10
Amendments10
Running Account10
Remoteness of damage10
Lump sum contract10
Rules of construction10
Performance of Contract10
Variation10
Interest10
Early Dismissal10
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act10
Quia timet injunction10
Protection of contractual rights10
Restraint of wrongs10
Rules of court10
Non-compliance10
Quantum of costs10
Injunctions10
Interpleader10
Commercial Disputes10
Transfer of Cases10
Jurisdiction10
Sham Contract10
Ancillary disclosure order10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Defamation
  • Costs
  • Taxation