Lin Jian Wei v Lim Eng Hock Peter: Indemnity Costs & Proportionality in Defamation

Lin Jian Wei and another appealed against the High Court's decision awarding Lim Eng Hock Peter taxed costs of $650,000 on an indemnity basis for a defamation suit (Suit 514). The Court of Appeal addressed the balance between compensating legal professionals and ensuring public access to justice, clarifying the role of proportionality in assessing legal costs. The Court allowed the appeal and substituted the $650,000 award with $250,000.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on indemnity costs awarded in a defamation suit. The court clarified the role of proportionality in assessing legal costs.

1.7 Decision Date

30 May 2011

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tung Yu-Lien Margaret	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Kristy Tan of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Eng Hock Peter	Respondent	Individual	Costs Award Reduced	Partial	Koh Swee Yen of Wong Partnership LLP Chan Hock Keng of Wong Partnership LLP
Lin Jian Wei	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Kristy Tan of Allen & Gledhill LLP

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

Counsel Name	Organization
Kristy Tan	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Koh Swee Yen	Wong Partnership LLP
Chan Hock Keng	Wong Partnership LLP

4. Facts

The respondent, Lim Eng Hock Peter, sued the appellants for defamation.
The High Court initially dismissed the defamation claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and awarded damages.
The Court of Appeal ordered costs of the trial to be taxed on an indemnity basis due to the appellants' conduct.
The respondent claimed $1,115,655 in costs under Section 1 of Bill of Costs No 247.
The High Court Judge awarded $650,000 in costs.
The appellants appealed, arguing the amount was disproportionate and excessive.
The Court of Appeal reduced the costs award to $250,000.

5. Formal Citations

Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter, Civil Appeal No 138 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 29
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another, , [2010] SGHC 254
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal, , [2010] 4 SLR 331
Lim Eng Hock v Lin Jian Wei and another, , [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties), , [2010] SGHC 163
Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd, , [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Tan Chin Seng and others, , [2005] 4 SLR(R) 351
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal, , [2010] 4 SLR 357
Jeyasegaram David (alias David Gerald Jeyasegaram) v Ban Song Long David, , [2005] 1 SLR(R) 1
Oei Hong Leong v Ban Song Long David and others, , [2005] 1 SLR(R) 277

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-08-15	Suit 514 commenced
2008-01-07	Summons No 5497 of 2007 and Summons No 5507 of 2007 hearing
2008-01-10	Summons No 64 of 2008 hearing
2008-02-11	Registrar’s Appeal No 22 of 2008 hearing
2008-02-22	Summons No 4849 of 2007 hearing
2008-04-17	SUM 4849/2007, Summons No 1702 of 2008 and the respondent’s oral application hearing
2008-04-18	SUM 4849/2007, Summons No 1702 of 2008 and the respondent’s oral application hearing
2008-07-09	Appellants’ applications under SUM 4849/2007 dismissed
2008-07-28	Summons No 2078 of 2009 hearing
2008-08-01	Affidavits of Evidence in Chief filed
2008-08-11	Defamation trial began
2008-08-15	Defamation trial concluded
2008-09-01	Written closing submissions exchanged
2008-09-03	Oral closing submissions made
2009-02-10	Judgment given dismissing the respondent’s defamation claim
2009-03-09	Respondent appealed against the judgment
2009-03-31	Respondent appealed against the judgment on costs
2009-07-30	Appeals heard by the Court of Appeal
2009-10-08	Court of Appeal released its judgment in respect of the appeals
2009-10-13	Respondent requested for certificate of costs for three solicitors
2009-10-15	Appellants responded to the respondent’s request
2009-10-16	Court of Appeal directed that costs for the hearing of Suit 514 be for two counsel only
2009-12-29	Respondent filed Bill of Costs No 247
2009-12-30	Respondent filed Bill of Costs No 248
2010-01-12	Appellants filed their Notice of Dispute in response to BC 247 and BC 248
2010-01-25	The subject bill and BC 248 were heard by a taxing AR
2010-02-09	The subject bill and BC 248 were heard by a taxing AR
2010-02-23	The respondent filed Summons No 803 of 2010 for a review of the AR’s decision
2010-02-23	The appellants filed Summons No 815 of 2010 for a review of the AR’s decision
2010-03-09	The applications for review of taxation were heard by the Judge
2010-03-16	The appellants filed Originating Summons No 279 of 2010 applying to the Judge for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
2010-03-23	The appellants made payment of the total court fees due for the extraction of the Registrar’s Certificates of BC 247 and BC 248
2010-04-19	OS 279 was heard by the Judge. Leave to appeal was refused
2010-04-23	The appellants filed Originating Summons No 391 of 2010 applying to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the Judge’s award of $650,000
2010-07-28	The Court of Appeal issued its judgment on the assessment of damages for Suit 514
2010-08-02	OS 391 was heard by the Court of Appeal which granted the application
2010-08-26	The Judge released the costs decision

7. Legal Issues

Assessment of Legal Costs
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal clarified the role of proportionality in assessing legal costs, emphasizing that costs must be reasonable and proportionate to the value of the claim and the complexity of the case. The court reduced the costs awarded.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonableness of costs
  - Proportionality of costs
  - Indemnity basis taxation
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] SGHC 254
  - [2010] 4 SLR 331
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004
  - [1983] Ch 59
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455
  - [2002] 1 WLR 2450
  - [1996] 3 SLR(R) 165
  - [1975] 1 WLR 1504
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 182
  - [1978] 1 WLR 446
Indemnity Basis for Taxation
- Outcome: The court clarified that while doubts about reasonableness are resolved in favor of the receiving party, this does not mean that all claimed costs are automatically accepted. Costs must still be reasonable and proportionate.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonableness of costs
  - Doubts resolved in favor of receiving party
Proportionality in Legal Costs
- Outcome: The court held that the principle of proportionality is a key consideration in assessing legal costs, even on an indemnity basis. Costs must bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue, the complexity of the case, and the importance of the matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Relationship between costs and value of claim
  - Complexity of issues
  - Importance of the matter
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Defamation
Appeals

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another	High Court	No	[2010] SGHC 254	Singapore	The appeal was against the decision of the High Court Judge awarding taxed costs of $650,000.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 331	Singapore	This case ordered that costs for the trial below be taxed on an indemnity basis.
Lim Eng Hock v Lin Jian Wei and another	High Court	No	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004	Singapore	This is the High Court defamation judgment that was appealed.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties)	High Court	No	[2010] SGHC 163	Singapore	Cited for background information on the respondent's involvement with Raffles Town Club.
Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	No	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 307	Singapore	Cited to show that there had been a breach of an implied promise by the Company to deliver to the plaintiffs a premier and exclusive club.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Tan Chin Seng and others	Court of Appeal	No	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 351	Singapore	Cited to show that the Company pay $3,000 in damages to each claimant.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 357	Singapore	Cited for the assessment of damages for Suit 514.
EMI Records Ltd v Ian Cameron Wallace Ltd	Chancery Division	No	[1983] Ch 59	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that unless it was clear that the costs were of an unreasonable amount or were unreasonably incurred, the item must be allowed to the receiving party.
Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 455	Singapore	Cited as an illustration of the importance of costs being maintained at a reasonable and proportionate level to the amount claimed.
VV and another v VW	High Court	No	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 929	Singapore	Cited for the suggestion that there is nothing in Singapore law, unlike the position in England, which compels the taxing officer to give regard to the principle of proportionality.
Lownds v Home Office	English Court of Appeal	No	[2002] 1 WLR 2450	England and Wales	Explained the relationship between the concepts of reasonableness and proportionality in the context of the CPR.
Sumitomo Bank Ltd v Kartika Ratna Thahir	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 165	Singapore	Cautioned against adopting a multiplier multiplicand approach in the assessment of costs.
Property and Reversionary Investment Corporation Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment	Court	No	[1975] 1 WLR 1504	England and Wales	Cautioned against adopting a multiplier multiplicand approach in the assessment of costs.
Shorvon Simon v Singapore Medical Council	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 182	Singapore	Cited for the issue that stubbornly prevails in the context of review of taxation is whether the award of the sum by the taxing Registrar and/or Judge was manifestly excessive and to that extent wrong.
Treasury Solicitor v Regester	Court	No	[1978] 1 WLR 446	England and Wales	A taxation award should result from an exercise in judgment, not arithmetic, whatever arithmetical cross-checks may be employed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court O 59 r 27(2)
Rules of Court O 59 r 27(3)
Rules of Court Appendix 1 to O 59
Rules of Court O 59 r 19

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Indemnity costs
Proportionality
Taxation of costs
Reasonableness
Blended rate
Charge out rates
Timesheet padding
Defamation
Qualified privilege
Malice

15.2 Keywords

Defamation
Costs
Indemnity
Proportionality
Singapore
Legal fees
Taxation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Defamation	90
Costs	85
Taxation of Legal Costs	75
Civil Procedure	70
Indemnity costs	60
Company Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Litigation
Defamation
Costs Assessment
Proportionality in Costs