Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu: Appeal on Solicitor-Client Costs and Leave Requirements
Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd appealed against a decision by the High Court refusing leave to tax a solicitor's bill of costs submitted by Thangavelu. The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal, holding that section 34(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act requires leave to appeal in cases relating to costs, which includes solicitor-client costs. The court found that Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd failed to obtain the necessary leave, resulting in a jurisdictional deficit.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal struck out
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding solicitor-client costs. The court decided that 'costs' in s 34(2)(b) of the SCJA includes solicitor-client costs, striking out the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd | Appellant, Applicant | Corporation | Appeal struck out | Lost | |
| Thangavelu | Respondent | Individual | Application to strike out appeal granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd commenced a lawsuit and was represented by Thangavelu.
- Thangavelu issued eight bills to Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd, which were paid without question.
- Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd later disputed the fees, claiming Thangavelu was overpaid.
- Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd lodged a complaint with the Law Society of Singapore.
- The Law Society advised Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd to seek taxation of the bills.
- Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd filed an originating summons for leave to tax the bills.
- The High Court rejected the application for leave to tax the bills.
5. Formal Citations
- Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu, CA/Civil Appeal No 76 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd commenced a lawsuit (Suit No 312 of 2010) against two defendants. | |
| Thangavelu issued bills to Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd. | |
| Thangavelu issued bills to Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd. | |
| Thangavelu presented three options to Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd to resolve the dispute. | |
| The Law Society responded to the appellant’s complaint. | |
| The Law Society dismissed the appellant’s complaint of dishonest conduct. | |
| The appellant was informed that there were no grounds to substantiate a finding that the respondent had been guilty of providing inadequate professional services. | |
| The appellant filed Originating Summons No 745 of 2014 for leave to tax the eight bills under s 122 of the LPA. | |
| The application for leave was heard by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J. | |
| The appellant filed its Notice of Appeal against the Judge’s decision in OS 745/2014. | |
| The respondent filed the present application (Summons No 236 of 2015) seeking to strike out the Notice of Appeal. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Requirement for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was required because the issue related to costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Interpretation of 'Costs'
- Outcome: The court held that 'costs' in s 34(2)(b) includes solicitor-client costs.
- Category: Substantive
- Special Circumstances for Taxation
- Outcome: The court upheld the lower court's decision that no special circumstances existed to justify taxation of the bills out of time.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to tax solicitor's bill of costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of s 34(2)(d) of the SCJA and the Schedules to the SCJA introduced by the 2010 amendments. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 880 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proper application of s 34(2)(d) of the SCJA and the Schedules to the SCJA introduced by the 2010 amendments. |
| MacKimmie Mathews v Hector | Court of Appeal of Alberta | Yes | [1998] ABCA 278 | Canada | Cited regarding whether an order regarding liability for a solicitor’s account is a discretionary order relating to “costs only”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 59 Rule 28 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 34 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 122 of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
| Section 85(1) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 75B of the Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Solicitor-client costs
- Taxation of costs
- Leave to appeal
- Special circumstances
- Section 34(2)(b) SCJA
- Section 122 LPA
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Appeal
- Solicitor
- Taxation
- Leave
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Assessment of Legal Costs | 95 |
| Costs | 90 |
| Legal Profession Act | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Costs
- Legal Profession