Goh Eileen v Goh Mei Ling: Costs Dispute over Family Property Transfer
In a supplemental judgment on costs for Suit No 732 of 2012, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Quentin Loh J, addressed the issue of who should bear the costs of the proceedings. The underlying case involved a family dispute between Goh Eileen née Chia and Goh Mei Ling Yvonne regarding a property transfer. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim and considered whether the Non-Parties (Goh Wai Mun Eric and Wee Phui Leong Penelope) and/or the Plaintiffs’ solicitors should be ordered to pay costs. Ultimately, the court ordered the Non-Parties to pay the Defendants SGD 164,955.78 as costs assessed on the standard basis.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Non-Parties to pay costs of SGD 164,955.78 assessed on the standard basis.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Supplemental judgment on costs for a case involving a family dispute over property transfer. The court ordered non-parties to pay costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Eileen née Chia | Plaintiff | Individual | Costs to be paid by Non-Parties | Neutral | |
| Goh Mei Ling Yvonne | Defendant | Individual | Costs awarded | Won | |
| Goh Wai Mun Eric | Other | Individual | Costs to be paid | Lost | |
| Wee Phui Leong Penelope | Other | Individual | Costs to be paid | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiffs filed a claim (Suit No 732 of 2012) which was dismissed.
- The Defendants sought costs against the Plaintiffs, the Non-Parties, and the Plaintiffs' solicitors.
- The Non-Parties offered to pay costs if the 1st Plaintiff was unable to bear them.
- The Plaintiffs did not sign any warrant to act; Eric signed it instead.
- The Non-Parties displayed a high level of interest and involvement in the proceedings.
- The proceedings were brought for the benefit and at the behest of Eric and Evan.
- The Non-Parties paid the deposit and legal fees for the proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Eileen née Chia and another v Goh Mei Ling Yvonne and another, Suit No 732 of 2012, [2014] SGHC 141
- Goh Eileen née Chia and another v Goh Mei Ling Yvonne and another, , [2014] SGHC 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit filed (Suit No 732 of 2012) | |
| Eric signed the warrant to act | |
| Non-Parties put on notice of possible adverse costs order | |
| Plaintiffs’ claim dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision issued | |
| Hearing on costs | |
| Decision on costs given | |
| Supplemental judgment on costs issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Liability for Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered the Non-Parties to pay the Defendants' costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-party liability for costs
- Solicitor's personal liability for costs
- Indemnity basis for costs
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 542
- [2004] 1 WLR 2807
- [2011] 1 SLR 582
- [1994] Ch 205
- Control and Funding of Litigation by Non-Parties
- Outcome: The court found that the Non-Parties had funded and controlled the proceedings with the intention of deriving a benefit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 542
- [2004] 1 WLR 2807
8. Remedies Sought
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 542 | Singapore | Cited for the overarching rule that governs the exercise of the court’s discretion in ordering costs against a non-party: it must, in all circumstances of the case, be just to do so. |
| Dymocks Franchise System (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (Associated Industrial Finance Pty Ltd, Third Party) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 2807 | England and Wales | Cited for factors to consider when deciding if a non-party should be liable for costs, including close connection and causal link. |
| Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 582 | Singapore | Cited regarding the ability of the party through whom the proceedings are brought or defended to meet any order for costs. |
| Murphy v Young & Co’s Brewery plc | N/A | No | [1997] 1 WLR 1591 | England and Wales | Cited to illustrate that funding litigation out of purely altruistic reasons is not sufficient to establish a close connection between a non-party and the proceedings. |
| Karting Club of Singapore v Mak David and others (Wee Soon Kim Anthony, intervener) | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that the benefit which the non-party might intend to derive from the proceedings can be in the form of avoiding the adverse consequences of litigation, eg, an adverse costs order. |
| Symphony Group Plc v Hodgson | English Court of Appeal | No | [1994] QB 179 | England and Wales | Cited by the Non-Parties for the proposition that they should have been warned at the earliest opportunity of the possibility of an adverse costs order being sought against them. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the three-stage test to determine when a solicitor should be personally liable for costs. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsefield for determining a solicitor's personal liability for costs. |
| Tan King Hiang v United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale behind O 59 r 8(1) of the Rules of Court and the need to balance public interests when making solicitors personally liable for costs. |
| Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v Breen; Breen v Slater | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 WLR 2723 | England and Wales | Cited as an example where costs on an indemnity basis might be warranted due to dishonesty, impropriety, and exceptional conduct on the part of a non-party. |
| Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) Ltd v Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd | N/A | No | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 813 | Singapore | Cited as an example where costs on an indemnity basis were sought but not awarded, despite material non-disclosure of facts. |
| Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave | N/A | No | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155 | Singapore | Cited as an example where costs on an indemnity basis were sought but not awarded, despite allegations of suppressed information and unjustifiably adversarial conduct. |
| Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 274 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden on a party seeking an order for indemnity costs is a high one. |
| Bank of China v First National Bank of Boston | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 72 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs can be disallowed for days where the hearing was unnecessarily prolonged. |
| Maratz Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 134 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs can be reduced if the proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged. |
| Anne Joseph Aaron (m w) and others v Cheong Yip Seng and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs can be reduced if cross-examination was unnecessarily prolonged. |
| Goh Eileen née Chia and another v Goh Mei Ling Yvonne and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 3 | Singapore | The main judgment to which this decision on costs is supplemental. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 59 r 2(2) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 64 r 7 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 59 r 8 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 59 r 27(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Costs
- Non-Party
- Indemnity Basis
- Warrant to Act
- Funding
- Control
- Solicitor's Liability
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Non-Party
- Solicitor
- Litigation
- Family Dispute
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Civil Litigation | 60 |
| Evidence Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Costs
- Family Dispute