Mohamed Amin v Lim Choon Thye: Collective Sale Approval & Costs Dispute

In Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others v Lim Choon Thye and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of costs following the plaintiffs' successful appeal in Originating Summons 17 of 2008, which concerned the approval of a collective sale. The court considered arguments related to the non-stamping of the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) and the fee-paying arrangement between the plaintiffs and their solicitors. Ultimately, the court determined that no order as to costs should be made, considering the agreement between the plaintiffs and their solicitors for the latter to look to a non-party for their legal costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

No order as to costs should be made in Originating Summons 17 of 2008.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding collective sale approval. The court addressed costs allocation after a prior successful appeal, considering the unstamped SPA and fee arrangements.

1.7 Decision Date

17 November 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others	Plaintiff	Other	No order as to costs	Neutral	Gary Low, Emmanual Chua
Lim Choon Thye and others	Defendant	Other	No order as to costs	Neutral	Ranvir Kumar Singh, Vijay Kumar Rai, Cheong Aik Chye, Cheng Yuen Hee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes
Woo J	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gary Low	Drew & Napier LLC
Emmanual Chua	Drew & Napier LLC
Ranvir Kumar Singh	Unilegal LLC
Vijay Kumar Rai	Arbiters' Inc Law Corporation
Cheong Aik Chye	A C Cheong & Co
Cheng Yuen Hee	A C Cheong & Co

4. Facts

Plaintiffs appealed a Strata Titles Board decision regarding a collective sale.
The Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) was not stamped.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) informed the Strata Titles Board (STB) that the SPA was unstamped.
The STB dismissed the plaintiffs' application due to the unstamped SPA.
The plaintiffs' legal fees were being paid by a property agent of the purchaser.
The plaintiffs refused to waive privilege and disclose their solicitors' retainer.
The court inferred an agreement between the plaintiffs and their solicitors for the latter to seek legal costs from a non-party.

5. Formal Citations

Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others v Lim Choon Thye and others, Originating Summons No 17 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 341

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-07	Originating Summons 17 of 2008 filed
2008-02-22	Second affidavit of Mr. Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib filed
2008-10-09	Hearing for Summons No 396 of 2008 and Originating Summons 17 of 2008
2008-10-30	Appeal heard and orders granted
2008-12-04	Letter sent by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
2008-12-22	Plaintiffs became aware that the SPA was unstamped
2009-03-18	Board recommenced hearing the plaintiffs’ application
2009-03-23	Board gave parties one final opportunity to have the SPA stamped
2009-03-24	Board dismissed the plaintiffs’ application
2009-07-10	Question of costs fixed to be heard
2009-07-27	Seventh and eighth defendants filed Summons No 3938 of 2009
2009-08-13	Affidavit filed by Mr Amin
2009-08-11	Summons No 3938 of 2009 heard
2009-08-18	Summons No 3938 of 2009 heard
2010-07-22	Parties returned to address the question of costs
2010-11-18	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Allocation of Costs
- Outcome: The court held that no order as to costs should be made, considering the agreement between the plaintiffs and their solicitors for the latter to look to a non-party for their legal costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Entitlement to costs
  - Deprivation of costs
  - Indemnity principle
- Related Cases:
  - [1994] 2 SLR(R) 501
  - [2001] 3 SLR(R) 253
  - [1992] 1 WLR 1207
  - [2006] 1 WLR 2723
  - [1910] 1 KB 645
  - [1996] 1 All ER 923
  - [1860] 5 H & N 381
  - [1974] AC 225
  - (1993) 26 HLR 232
  - [1985] 1 WLR 689
Admissibility of Unstamped Documents
- Outcome: The court acknowledged that the non-stamping of the SPA rendered it inadmissible as evidence but could be rectified upon payment of the duty and penalty.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the decision of the Strata Titles Board
Remitting the application for approval of the collective sale to the Board for a fresh decision
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tullio Planata v Maoro Andrea G	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 501	Singapore	Endorsed the principles governing the award of costs, including the principle that costs should follow the event unless there are special reasons.
Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR(R) 253	Singapore	Cited for the general rule that costs should follow the event unless there are special reasons for depriving the successful litigant of costs.
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 WLR 1207	England and Wales	Summarized the principles on which costs were to be awarded, including the court's discretion and the circumstances for depriving a successful party of costs.
Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen; Breen v Slater	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 WLR 2723	England and Wales	Distinguished from the present case; cited regarding the conduct of a third party suppressing disclosure of a key document, justifying an adverse order of costs.
Gundry v Sainsbury	N/A	Yes	[1910] 1 KB 645	England and Wales	Cited for the rule that a litigant may not recover more in costs than what he is liable to pay to his own solicitor, and that party and party costs are given in the character of an indemnity.
Joyce v Kammac (1988) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 All ER 923	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the losing party is obliged to pay such costs as the receiving party is primarily and potentially legally obliged to pay to his solicitor.
Harold v Smith	N/A	Yes	[1860] 5 H & N 381	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that costs are given as an indemnity and not as a punishment or bonus.
Davies (A.P.) (suing as widow and administratrix of the estate of Kenneth Stanley Davies, decd) v Taylor (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1974] AC 225	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that costs may still be recovered where a solicitor accepts payment from another in lieu of payment from the client, provided the client remains primarily liable.
British Waterways Board v Norman	N/A	Yes	(1993) 26 HLR 232	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that no costs are recoverable if a solicitor expressly or impliedly agrees not to charge his client.
Pamplin v Express Newspapers Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1985] 1 WLR 689	England and Wales	Cited regarding the approach to factual disputes during taxation and the claimant's choice to waive privilege.
Sum 3938/2009	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 216	Singapore	Cited for the judge's observation that the non-stamping of the SPA was a situation that could have been easily rectified at any time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rule 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Collective sale
Strata Titles Board
Sale and Purchase Agreement
Stamp duty
Costs
Maintenance
Indemnity
Privilege
Retainer

15.2 Keywords

Collective sale
Costs
Strata Titles Board
SPA
Stamp duty
Singapore

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Real Estate
Costs

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Real Estate Law
Strata Titles Law
Collective Sale Law
Costs