SATS Construction v Islam Md Ohidul: Pro Bono Costs & Access to Justice

In SATS Construction Pte Ltd v Islam Md Ohidul, the High Court of Singapore dismissed SATS Construction's appeal against the Assistant Commissioner for Labour's decision, which awarded Islam Md Ohidul $1,931.13 for unpaid salaries. The court considered whether costs could be awarded to Ohidul, who was represented pro bono. The court ordered costs in favour of the respondent, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and clarifying that such an award does not violate the indemnity principle or constitute champerty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed; costs ordered in favor of the Respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding unpaid salaries. The court addressed whether costs can be awarded to a party represented pro bono, emphasizing access to justice.

1.7 Decision Date

16 May 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
SATS Construction Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Dhanwant Singh of S K Kumar Law Practice LLP Krishna Morthy of S K Kumar Law Practice LLP
Islam Md Ohidul	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Chan Kah Keen Melvin of TSMP Law Corporation Hannah Tjoa Kai Xuan of TSMP Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Debbie Ong	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Dhanwant Singh	S K Kumar Law Practice LLP
Krishna Morthy	S K Kumar Law Practice LLP
Chan Kah Keen Melvin	TSMP Law Corporation
Hannah Tjoa Kai Xuan	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

Islam Md Ohidul, a Bangladeshi worker, was employed by SATS Construction Pte Ltd for $22 a day.
The Assistant Commissioner for Labour awarded Ohidul $1,931.13 for unpaid salaries.
SATS Construction appealed the Assistant Commissioner's decision.
Ohidul was represented by lawyers from TSMP Law Corporation on a pro bono basis.
Any costs recovered would be donated to HOME, a charity for migrant workers.
The court considered whether costs could be awarded to a party represented pro bono.
Ohidul executed a Power of Attorney in favour of a case worker from HOME.

5. Formal Citations

SATS Construction Pte Ltd v Islam Md Ohidul, Tribunal Appeal No 7 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 99

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-03-13	Employment terminated by the Appellant.
2015-05-25	Decision rendered by the Assistant Commissioner.
2015-07-16	Power of Attorney executed in favor of a case worker from HOME.
2015-07-20	Respondent returned to Bangladesh.
2016-01-29	Appeal dismissed by the High Court.
2016-03-11	Hearing on the issue of costs.
2016-04-27	Matter heard.
2016-05-17	Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Award of Costs in Pro Bono Cases
- Outcome: The court held that costs could be awarded to a successful litigant represented on a pro bono basis, emphasizing access to justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 SLR 246
  - [2015] 5 SLR 153
  - [2015] 1 SLR 496
  - [2014] 1 SLR 245
  - [2011] 2 SLR 343
  - [1910] 1 KB 645
  - (2006) 66 NSWLR 474
  - (1860) 5 H & N 381
  - [2014] VSCA 227
  - [2013] 4 SLR 91
Indemnity Principle
- Outcome: The court clarified that awarding costs in pro bono cases does not violate the indemnity principle.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 1 SLR 245
  - [2015] 1 SLR 496
Champerty
- Outcome: The court held that the costs arrangement in this case did not constitute champerty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 4 SLR 91

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

Unpaid Salaries

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Employment Dispute Resolution

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Aurol Anthony Sabastian v Sembcorp Marine Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 246	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power to award costs is discretionary and aims for the fairest allocation.
JBB v JBA	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 153	Singapore	Cited for the general principle that costs should follow the event.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 496	Singapore	Cited for the principle that costs should generally follow the event and the policy considerations behind the indemnity principle.
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 should generally follow the event is one aspect of the indemnity principle and the ultimate policy of the indemnity principle is rooted not in compensation but in enhancing access to justice.
Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others v Lim Choon Thye and others	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 343	Singapore	Cited regarding the quantification of costs and the indemnity principle.
Gundry v Sainsbury	King's Bench Division	Yes	[1910] 1 KB 645	England and Wales	Cited regarding the quantification of costs and the indemnity principle.
Wentworth v Rogers	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	(2006) 66 NSWLR 474	Australia	Cited for the principle that the indemnity principle is not immutable and should be applied flexibly.
Harold v Smith	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1860) 5 H & N 381	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that costs are neither imposed as a punishment to the losing party nor as a reward to the winning party.
Mainieri v Cirillo	Victorian Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] VSCA 227	Australia	Cited regarding conditional fee agreements and the indemnity principle.
Law Society of Singapore v Kurubalan s/o Manickam Rengaraju	Court of Three Judges	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 91	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between impecunious clients and other litigants in the context of legal representation and costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 55 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5)	Singapore
Employment Act (Cap 91)	Singapore
Order 59 rr 2(2)	Singapore
Order 59 rr 3(2)	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Section 107 of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Legal Aid and Advice Act (Cap 160, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Pro Bono
Costs
Indemnity Principle
Champerty
Access to Justice
Migrant Worker
Unpaid Salaries

15.2 Keywords

Pro Bono
Costs
Employment
Singapore
Legal Aid
Access to Justice

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Pro Bono Services	90
Costs	85
Civil Practice	70
Employment Law	60
Legal Aid	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Employment Law
Costs
Pro Bono Legal Services