Eqita Insurance Bhd v Lim Teong Thye David: Appeal on Costs Order in District Court Suit
Eqita Insurance Bhd appealed to the High Court against a District Judge's decision regarding costs orders awarded to Lim Teong Thye David in two interlocutory applications arising from a District Court suit. The High Court, presided over by Lee Kim Shin JC, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant required leave to appeal since the subject matter of the appeal was limited solely to the issue of costs, and the amount of costs in question did not exceed $50,000. The court determined that the appeal was not properly before it as leave had not been obtained.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding costs orders in a District Court suit. The High Court held that leave to appeal was required as the amount in dispute was below $50,000.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eqita Insurance Bhd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar, Makalingam Rekha |
| Lim Teong Thye David | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Chen Xiao Ying, Chia Xin Hui |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Kim Shin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ramasamy s/o Karuppan Chettiar | Acies Law Corporation |
| Makalingam Rekha | Acies Law Corporation |
| Chen Xiao Ying | Eldan Law LLP |
| Chia Xin Hui | Eldan Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Eqita Insurance Bhd appealed against costs orders awarded to Lim Teong Thye David in the District Court.
- The costs orders arose from two interlocutory applications: striking out and amendment of the Statement of Claim.
- The Deputy Registrar awarded costs of $10,000 for the striking out application and $1,000 for the amendment application.
- Eqita Insurance Bhd did not appeal the substantive aspects of the Deputy Registrar's decision.
- The District Judge reduced the costs to $3,500 and $1,000 respectively.
- Eqita Insurance Bhd appealed to the High Court seeking further reduction of costs.
- The High Court considered whether leave to appeal was required.
5. Formal Citations
- Eqita Insurance Bhd v Lim Teong Thye David, District Court Suit No 1366 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal State Courts No 171 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 211
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| District Court Suit No 1366 of 2012 filed | |
| District Judge allowed the Appellant’s appeal and reduced the costs awarded against the Appellant. | |
| Notice of Appeal to the High Court filed | |
| Appeal heard by the High Court | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was required because the amount in dispute (the costs orders) was less than $50,000.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Reduction of Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Wah Chuan v Seow Hwa Chuan | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1150 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'amount in dispute' under s 21 of the SCJA. |
| Fong Khim Ling v Tan Teck Ann | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'amount in dispute' or 'value of the subject-matter' in ss 21(1)(a) and 34(2)(a) of the SCJA. |
| Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 245 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs orders are compensation for legal expenses, not vindication of rights. |
| Ng Eng Ghee and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs orders are compensation for legal expenses, not vindication of rights. |
| Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 685 | Singapore | Cited to explain that the Deputy Registrar derives jurisdiction and power to hear matters through the District Judge. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Sharif v Abdul Salim bin Syed | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the 'amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter' in s 21 does not encompass the non-contractual interest and costs elements of a claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 55C rr 1 and 2 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 21(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 21(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(2)(b) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 47 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leave to Appeal
- Costs Orders
- Amount in Dispute
- Subject-Matter
- Monetary Threshold
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- District Court
- High Court
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Costs
- District Court
- High Court
- Leave to Appeal
- Singapore
- SCJA
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Costs
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Costs