BLG v BLI: Review of Bill of Costs in Mental Capacity Act Application

BLG and BLH, the applicants, sought a review of a bill of costs against BLI, BLJ, and BLK, the respondents, arising from an Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011 concerning a Mental Capacity Act application. The High Court dismissed the applicants' summons for the first and second respondents to produce documents setting out a breakdown of the total number of hours spent by each of their lawyers.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applicants' summons dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Review of a bill of costs arising from a Mental Capacity Act application. The court dismissed the applicants' summons for the respondents to produce their solicitors' bills.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BLGApplicantIndividualSummons dismissedLost
BLHApplicantIndividualSummons dismissedLost
BLIRespondentIndividualSummons dismissedWon
BLJRespondentIndividualSummons dismissedWon
BLKRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jamal Siddique PeerShook Lin & Bok LLP
Cheryl ChongShook Lin & Bok LLP
Edmund EngShook Lin & Bok LLP
Kelvin Poon Kin MunRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Alyssa LeongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lee Hwee Yenn AmandaTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. BLG and BLH applied for a declaration that their sister, BLK, lacked the capacity to make decisions regarding her property and affairs.
  2. The MCA application was opposed by BLK, BLI, and BLJ.
  3. The State Courts initially granted the MCA application.
  4. The High Court allowed the respondents' appeals, setting aside the State Courts' decision.
  5. The Court of Appeal allowed the applicants' appeal with costs reserved.
  6. The applicants filed a bill of costs, which was later amended.
  7. The Senior Assistant Registrar reduced the applicants' costs significantly.
  8. The applicants sought an order for the respondents to produce a breakdown of their lawyers' hours.
  9. The applicants' costs schedule filed before the Court of Appeal hearing contained significantly lower cost estimates than the amended bill of costs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BLG and anothervBLI and others, , [2018] SGHC 86

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011 filed
Summons No 2971 of 2011 filed
Summons No 19006 of 2011 filed
Registrar’s Appeal No 13 of 2012 filed
State Courts granted the MCA Application
Originating Summons No 959 of 2013 filed
Civil Appeal No 27 of 2014 filed
Court of Appeal made costs orders
Original Bill of Costs filed
Amended Bill of Costs filed
Senior Assistant Registrar reduced the applicants’ costs
Summons No 5386 of 2017 filed
Applicants’ summons was dismissed by the High Court
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Review of Taxation of Costs
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the applicants' summons for the respondents to produce their solicitors' bills for the taxation review.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Solicitor-Client Privilege
    • Outcome: The court held that it would set a dangerous precedent to allow one firm of solicitors to see the solicitor-and-client charges/bills of another firm.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Production of documents setting out a breakdown of the total number of hours spent by each of the respondents' lawyers

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re BKRHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 1257SingaporeThe High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the court below.
Re BKRCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 81SingaporeThe Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with costs reserved.
Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock PeterCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 1052SingaporeCited for the multifactorial approach to be taken in taxation and the principle of proportionality.
Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 1079SingaporeCited for the purpose of costs scheduling and the guidance provided in the Costs Guidelines.
Singapore Medical Council v Lim Mey Lee SusanHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 129SingaporeCited in support of arguments regarding factors the court must take into account in taxation.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)Court of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR (R) 392SingaporeCited to support the contention that the applicants cannot file the applicants’ summons to circumvent their omission to appeal.
Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian WeiCourt of AppealYes[2010] 45 SLR 331SingaporeCited regarding the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision to award indemnity costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 59 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)
Order 59 r 13(d) of the Rules of Court
Order 59 r 35(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Bill of costs
  • Taxation
  • Indemnity costs
  • Costs schedule
  • Solicitor-and-client privilege
  • Mental Capacity Act
  • Originating summons

15.2 Keywords

  • bill of costs
  • taxation
  • mental capacity
  • solicitor client privilege

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Bill of costs85
Costs75
Taxation of Legal Costs70
Legal Profession Act60
Mental Capacity Law50
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Costs
  • Mental Capacity Law