Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei: Defamation Claim Costs Assessment

In Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of costs following a successful defamation claim by the Plaintiff, Lim Eng Hock Peter, against the Defendants, Lin Jian Wei and another. The Plaintiff was initially awarded damages of $140,000 and aggravated damages of $70,000. The Court of Appeal ordered the Defendants to bear the costs of the trial on an indemnity basis and for the appeal on a standard basis. The court assessed the Plaintiff's Bill of Costs, ultimately awarding $650,000 to the Plaintiff.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Costs awarded to the Plaintiff in the amount of $650,000 on an indemnity basis.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Assessment of costs for a successful defamation claim. The court considered the complexity, skill, and time expended by the plaintiff's counsel.

1.7 Decision Date

25 August 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Eng Hock Peter	Plaintiff	Individual	Costs awarded	Won	Koh Swee Yen, Suegene Ang
Lin Jian Wei	Defendant	Individual	Costs to be borne	Lost	Kristy Tan Ruyan
Another	Defendant	Other	Costs to be borne	Lost	Kristy Tan Ruyan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Koh Swee Yen	WongPartnership LLP
Suegene Ang	WongPartnership LLP
Kristy Tan Ruyan	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff successfully sued Defendants for defamation.
Defamatory statements were in an Explanatory Statement to Scheme Creditors.
Court of Appeal ordered costs to Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
Plaintiff's counsel provided detailed particulars in the Bill of Costs.
Defendants disclosed voluminous documents late in the proceedings.
Defendants relied on allegations in Suit 46 for their justification defense.
The Plaintiff was awarded damages of $140,000 and aggravated damages of $70,000.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another, Bill of Costs No 247 of 2009 (Summonses Nos 803 and 815 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 254

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-11-02	Defamatory statements published in Explanatory Statement.
2007-07-20	Trial proceedings began.
2009-03-24	Trial proceedings concluded.
2009-01-29	Jacelyn Chan ceased work on the file.
2009-01-01	Singapore Court Practice 2009 published.
2010-08-26	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Reasonableness of Costs
- Outcome: The court determined the amount of costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis, considering the complexity of the case, the skill and time expended by the solicitor, and other relevant circumstances.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonable Incurrence of Costs
  - Reasonable Amount of Costs
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155
Indemnity Basis for Taxation of Costs
- Outcome: The court clarified the principles of taxation on an indemnity basis, emphasizing that all costs shall be allowed except in so far as they are of an unreasonable amount or have been unreasonably incurred.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application of O59 r 27 (3) of the Rules of Court
  - Resolution of Doubts in Favor of Receiving Party
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155
Relevance of Raffles Town Club Suit
- Outcome: The court found that the matters in Suit 46 were relevant to the defamation trial, as the Defendants themselves had introduced them as particulars of their plea of justification.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Admissibility of Evidence from Separate Suit
  - Impact on Justification Defence
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] SGHC 163

8. Remedies Sought

Costs
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 155	Singapore	Cited to clarify the indemnity principle and the difference between costs on the indemnity basis and the standard basis.
Tullio v Maoro	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 489	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that costs should follow the event except in special circumstances.
Harold v Smith	N/A	Yes	(1860) 5 H & N 381	England and Wales	Cited to explain that costs are given as an indemnity to the person entitled to them and not as a punishment on the party who pays them.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties)	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 163	Singapore	Cited as another High Court action involving Raffles Town Club, the Plaintiff, and the Defendants, which became relevant in the defamation action when the Defendants annexed RTC’s statement of claim in Suit 46 as a schedule to the Defendants’ defence in the defamation action as particulars of their plea of justification.
Nganthavee Teriya (alias Gan Hui Poo) v Ang Yee Lim Lawrence and others	N/A	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 361	Singapore	Cited as a case where the Defendants relied on allegations made by Tan Buck Chye.
Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 1	Singapore	Cited for comparison of hourly rates in defamation cases.
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 277	Singapore	Cited for comparison of hourly rates in defamation cases.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court	Singapore
Companies Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Indemnity Basis
Bill of Costs
Explanatory Statement
Qualified Privilege
Justification
Scheme Creditors
Raffles Town Club
Malice
Taxation of Costs

15.2 Keywords

defamation
costs
indemnity basis
Singapore
legal fees
Raffles Town Club

16. Subjects

Defamation
Civil Procedure
Legal Costs

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Defamation Law
Costs