Tommy Choo v Kuntjoro Wibawa: Appeal Against Stay of Taxation of Costs

In Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners against an order staying the taxation of costs. The respondent, Kuntjoro Wibawa, had alleged an oral agreement superseded a warrant to act. Choo Han Teck J allowed the appeal, ordering the bill of costs to be restored for taxation, finding that the assistant registrar could consider the respondent's arguments during taxation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

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 regarding stay of taxation of costs. The High Court allowed the appeal, ordering the bill of costs to be restored for taxation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tommy Choo, Mark Go & PartnersApplicant, AppellantPartnershipAppeal AllowedWonBachoo Mohan Singh, Ling Leong Hui
Kuntjoro WibawaRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostOoi Oon Tat

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Bachoo Mohan SinghCounsel
Ling Leong HuiTommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners
Ooi Oon TatJudy Cheng & Co

4. Facts

  1. The applicant, Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners, is a law firm.
  2. The respondent, Kuntjoro Wibawa, was a client of the applicant since July 2011.
  3. The applicant was retained under a warrant to act dated 20 August 2011, signed by the respondent.
  4. The matter concerned certain trusts and payments out of those trusts.
  5. The respondent changed solicitors and appointed Mr Almenoar to act in place of the applicant.
  6. The applicant raised a bill of costs for the solicitor and client costs, based on rates of charges set out in the warrant to act.
  7. The respondent alleged that the bill should not be taxed on the terms set out in the warrant to act because it was superseded by an oral agreement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa, Bill of Costs No 173 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 94 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 79

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Respondent became a client of the applicant.
Warrant to act signed by the respondent.
Andrew Ang J ordered that the applicant’s bill be taxed.
Taxation proceedings were due to be heard.
Taxation proceedings adjourned; Mr. Almenoar intended to apply to be discharged as the respondent’s solicitor.
Clarification hearing before Andrew Ang J, who held that he was functus officio.
Taxation hearing adjourned at the request of Mr Ooi.
Mr Ooi obtained another adjournment to file an application for a stay.
Summons No 1207 of 2014 filed.
Assistant registrar heard Summons No 1207 and adjourned the taxation.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Taxation of Costs
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the Bill of Costs be restored for taxation.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Oral Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the allegation by the respondent cannot be resolved by an Originating Summons application and is a contractual claim which is disputed on the facts.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Taxation of Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Taxation of costs
  • Warrant to act
  • Oral agreement
  • Solicitor and client costs
  • Indemnity basis

15.2 Keywords

  • Taxation of costs
  • Appeal
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Contract
  • Legal costs

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Legal Costs

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Costs
  • Contract Law