Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave: Costs Allocation in Collective Sale Dispute
In Ng Eng Ghee and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the allocation of costs following a successful appeal against a collective sale order for Horizon Towers. The court considered the entitlements of appellants Ng Eng Ghee, Hendra Gunawan, Sulistiowati Kusumo, and Ong Sioe Hong, and Rudy Darmawan, as well as non-appealing parties, in recovering costs from respondents Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others and intervener Horizon Partners Pte Ltd. The court determined which costs were recoverable, who was liable to pay them, and addressed the distribution of interest accrued on the deposit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Cost orders made in favour of the appellants and non-appealing parties.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal determined the allocation of costs after a successful appeal against a collective sale order, addressing the rights of non-appealing parties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mamata Kapildev Dave | Respondent | Individual | Costs to be paid | Lost | |
| Ng Eng Ghee | Appellant | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | |
| Hendra Gunawan | Appellant | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | |
| Sulistiowati Kusumo | Appellant | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | |
| Ong Sioe Hong | Appellant | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | |
| Horizon Partners Pte Ltd | Intervener | Corporation | Costs to be paid | Lost | |
| Rudy Darmawan | Appellant | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | Rudy Darmawan of Independent Practitioner |
| Then Khek Koon | Other | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial | |
| Tan Kim Lian Jasmine | Other | Individual | Partial costs awarded | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The case involves a dispute over the collective sale of Horizon Towers.
- The Strata Titles Board initially approved the collective sale, but the decision was appealed.
- The Court of Appeal overturned the Horizon Board’s order for the collective sale.
- The court addressed the issue of costs following the successful appeal.
- The intervener, Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, played a significant role in the proceedings.
- A substantial amount of interest accumulated on the deposit paid for the purchase of Horizon Towers.
5. Formal Citations
- Ng Eng Ghee and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and Another Appeal, CA 119/2008, 120/2008, OS 10/2008, 11/2008, [2009] SGCA 30
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Tranche of Horizon Board proceedings. | |
| First Tranche of Horizon Board proceedings. | |
| Second Tranche of Horizon Board proceedings. | |
| Second Tranche of Horizon Board proceedings. | |
| Horizon Board’s order for collective sale. | |
| Strata Titles Board order obtained. | |
| Sale committee meeting to proceed with the sale of Horizon Towers. | |
| Originating Summonses Nos 10 of 2008 and 11 of 2008 to the High Court against the Horizon Board’s decision in October 2007. | |
| Civil Appeal No 119 of 2008 filed. | |
| Civil Appeal No 120 of 2008 filed. | |
| Judgment in Appeals in favour of the appellants. | |
| Judgment in Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave [2009] SGCA 14. | |
| Minority owners’ Written Submissions to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Letter to the consenting subsidiary proprietors regarding apportionment of interest. | |
| Interest amount on deposit was $1,883,087.40. | |
| TRC’s letter addressed to the Registrar, Supreme Court. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Allocation of Costs
- Outcome: The court determined the allocation of costs among the parties, considering various factors such as participation in proceedings, representation, and conduct.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Entitlement of non-appealing parties to costs
- Entitlement of appellants to one set of costs each
- Costs for proceedings pertaining to technical non-compliance
- Standard or indemnity basis
- Reasonable costs incurred by in-person litigants
- Costs for three counsel
- Liability for costs
- Distribution of Interest on Deposit
- Outcome: The court ruled that the interest on the deposit should be shared by all subsidiary proprietors, not just the consenting ones.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Allocation of Costs
- Determination of interest distribution
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 14 | Singapore | The present judgment is the corollary of Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave [2009] SGCA 14. |
| Tullio v Maoro | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs should follow the event except in special circumstances. |
| Harold v Smith | Unknown | Yes | (1860) 5 H & N 381 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that costs are given as an indemnity to the person entitled to them. |
| Tan Harry v Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR 513 | Singapore | Distinguished; does not stand for the general proposition that parties who do not appeal cannot reap the fruits of a successful appeal. |
| Teo Chee Yeow Aloysius v Tan Harry | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR 588 | Singapore | Distinguished; does not stand for the general proposition that parties who do not appeal cannot reap the fruits of a successful appeal. |
| Harbin v Masterman | Unknown | Yes | [1896] 1 Ch 351 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that separate sets of costs would only be awarded to successful defendants who were separately represented if the court was satisfied that such separate representation was justified. |
| Smith v Buller | Unknown | Yes | (1875) LR 19 Eq 473 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that costs chargeable as between party and party are all that are necessary to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation, and no more. |
| Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the usual order where different parties with broadly similar interests are represented by different counsel is just one set of costs. |
| Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd v Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 919 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs to be on a standard basis even though there was a material non-disclosure of facts. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 59 r 18A Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) s 84A(7C) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Collective sale
- Costs
- Strata Titles Board
- Subsidiary proprietors
- Intervener
- Deposit
- Interest
- Non-appealing parties
- Indemnity principle
15.2 Keywords
- Collective sale
- Costs
- Strata Titles Board
- Horizon Towers
- Singapore
- Real Estate
- Litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Strata Title Law | 90 |
| Collective Sale | 85 |
| Property Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Real Estate
- Costs
- Strata Titles
- Collective Sales