Asian Corporate Services v Impact Pacific: Taxation of Costs Dispute After Settlement Agreement

Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd (ACS) filed an originating summons in the High Court of Singapore, seeking an order for the defendants, including Impact Pacific Consultants Pte Ltd, to pay the costs of Suit 834/2004, following a Settlement Agreement. The defendants objected to the taxation of costs, arguing that ACS had not obtained a prior order for taxation and that the settlement agreement only required them to pay a fixed sum. Woo Bih Li J held that the defendants were liable for costs under the Settlement Agreement and ordered them to pay the costs of the original suit and the originating summons.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Order for costs granted; defendants to pay costs of the original suit and the originating summons.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over taxation of costs after a settlement agreement. The court ordered the defendants to pay costs, finding their objection untenable.

1.7 Decision Date

20 October 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Andy Leck of Wong & Leow LLC Li Yuen Ting of Wong & Leow LLC
Impact Pacific Consultants Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Impact Pacific Management Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch)	Defendant	Corporation	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Fullcircle Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Duncan Samuel Rothwell Merrin	Defendant	Individual	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Norhayati Bt Malek	Defendant	Individual	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Mark Justin Baile	Defendant	Individual	Costs to be paid	Lost	Ooi Oon Tat of Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Gregory James Kennedy	Defendant	Individual	Costs to be paid	Lost	Lim Dao Kai of Allen & Gledhill
Quek Ka Joo	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Andy Leck	Wong & Leow LLC
Li Yuen Ting	Wong & Leow LLC
Ooi Oon Tat	Salem Ibrahim & Partners
Lim Dao Kai	Allen & Gledhill

4. Facts

ACS commenced an action against nine defendants in Suit 834 of 2004.
The parties in Suit 834/2004 entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 30 October 2007.
The Settlement Agreement included a clause for the defendants to pay ACS's costs in the Suit.
ACS filed a Notice of Discontinuance for the main action and counterclaim on 7 November 2007.
ACS filed two bills of costs on 7 April 2008.
The defendants objected to the taxation of the bill of costs, arguing that ACS was not entitled to tax the same because it had not obtained an order for taxation.
ACS filed the present OS on 5 August 2008 for orders that costs of the proceedings in Suit 834/2004 be paid by all the defendants, with such costs to be taxed.

5. Formal Citations

Asian Corporate Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Impact Pacific Consultants Pte Ltd and Others, OS 1034/2008, [2008] SGHC 180

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-10-15	Action commenced in Suit No. 834 of 2004
2007-10-30	Settlement Agreement signed
2007-11-07	Notice of Discontinuance filed for main action and counterclaim
2008-04-07	ACS filed two bills of costs
2008-04-22	Bills of costs fixed for hearing
2008-04-29	Taxation adjourned due to objections
2008-05-13	Registrar’s Appeal 192 and 193 of 2008 filed
2008-06-02	Appeals heard by Justice Lee Seiu Kin
2008-06-03	Bills of costs came up for taxation again
2008-08-05	Originating summons filed
2008-10-21	Decision date

7. Legal Issues

Liability for Costs under Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants were liable for costs under the Settlement Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2000] 1 SLR 137
Requirement for Order for Taxation
- Outcome: The court held that ACS could obtain an order for costs in fresh proceedings, if necessary, despite not obtaining it in the original suit.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2000] 1 SLR 137

8. Remedies Sought

Order for costs
Taxation of costs

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Settlement Agreement

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chin Yoke Choong Bobby v Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 137	Singapore	Distinguished; cited regarding the need to seek a consequential order for costs within the same proceedings, but found inapplicable due to the existence of a new cause of action under the Settlement Agreement.

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

Settlement Agreement
Taxation of Costs
Originating Summons
Notice of Discontinuance
Bills of Costs
Order for Taxation

15.2 Keywords

settlement agreement
taxation of costs
civil procedure
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	95
Civil Practice	75
Contract Law	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law