Yeo Boong Hua v Turf Club Auto Emporium: Costs Dispute over Conspiracy and Breach of Contract

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, plaintiffs Yeo Boong Hua, Lim Ah Poh, and Teo Tian Seng sought costs against defendants Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd, Singapore Agro Agricultural Pte Ltd, Koh Khong Meng, Turf City Pte Ltd, Tan Huat Chye, Ng Chye Samuel, Tan Chee Beng, and Ong Cher Keong, following multiple hearings related to claims of conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract. Woo Bih Li J determined that Singapore Agro Agricultural Pte Ltd, Koh Khong Meng, Tan Huat Chye, and Tan Chee Beng were jointly and severally liable for the costs, awarding $435,500 for costs and $398,597.76 for disbursements to the plaintiffs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Costs awarded to the plaintiffs, payable jointly and severally by the second, third, fifth, and seventh defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment on Costs

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Costs dispute following a lawsuit involving conspiracy and breach of contract. The court determined the allocation of costs for multiple hearings.

1.7 Decision Date

14 March 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Chee Beng	Defendant	Individual	Costs Payable	Lost	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Melissa Kor of Optimus Chambers LLC Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Irving Choh of Optimus Chambers LLC
Tan Huat Chye	Defendant	Individual	Costs Payable	Lost	Melissa Kor of Optimus Chambers LLC Irving Choh of Optimus Chambers LLC
Yeo Boong Hua	Plaintiff	Individual	Costs Awarded	Won	Hari Veluri of TSMP Law Corporation Ong Pei Ching of TSMP Law Corporation Adrian Tan of TSMP Law Corporation Joel Goh of TSMP Law Corporation
Lim Ah Poh	Plaintiff	Individual	Costs Awarded	Won	Hari Veluri of TSMP Law Corporation Ong Pei Ching of TSMP Law Corporation Adrian Tan of TSMP Law Corporation Joel Goh of TSMP Law Corporation
Teo Tian Seng	Plaintiff	Individual	Costs Awarded	Won	Hari Veluri of TSMP Law Corporation Ong Pei Ching of TSMP Law Corporation Adrian Tan of TSMP Law Corporation Joel Goh of TSMP Law Corporation
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	No costs sought	Neutral	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Singapore Agro Agricultural Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Costs Payable	Lost	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Koh Khong Meng	Defendant	Individual	Costs Payable	Lost	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Turf City Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	No costs sought	Neutral	Kelvin Poon of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Ng Chye Samuel	Defendant	Individual	No costs sought	Neutral
Ong Cher Keong	Defendant	Individual	No costs sought	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kelvin Poon	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Melissa Kor	Optimus Chambers LLC
Alyssa Leong	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Irving Choh	Optimus Chambers LLC
Hari Veluri	TSMP Law Corporation
Ong Pei Ching	TSMP Law Corporation
Adrian Tan	TSMP Law Corporation
Joel Goh	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

The judgment addresses the question of costs in respect of four hearings.
The plaintiffs sought to hold SAA, Koh, Tan Senior, and Tan CB jointly and severally liable for costs.
R&T agreed that SAA, Koh, Tan Senior, and Tan CB should bear any costs granted to the plaintiffs jointly and severally.
Optimus submitted that costs should not be on a joint and several basis.
The Court of Appeal ordered Tan CB, SAA and Koh to pay one set of costs for CA 168/2015 and Tan Senior to pay another separate set of costs for CA 171/2015.
The plaintiffs sought a certificate for costs for three lawyers, which was previously dismissed.
The plaintiffs asked for $1.5m for the 2014 Trial costs.
The plaintiffs claimed disbursements for the CA 156/2012 Hearing and the 2014 Trial.
The plaintiffs claimed an additional $1,000 as disbursements for the 2017 Torts Hearing.
The plaintiffs claimed $299,796.29 for Mr Reid’s services, which was not allowed.
The plaintiffs claimed $60,000 for attendance in court for the three of them, which was not allowed.
The plaintiffs claimed $5,550 for sustenance and transport expenses, which was not allowed.
The plaintiffs claimed $5,104.91 for various miscellaneous expenses, which was disallowed.
The plaintiffs claimed $4,794.67 as fees paid to the Singapore Mediation Centre, which was disallowed.
The plaintiffs claimed $4,727.10 being disbursements in respect of various interlocutory applications, which was disallowed.

5. Formal Citations

Yeo Boong Hua and others v Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 27 of 2009, [2019] SGHC 73

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	Lawsuit filed in Suit No 27 of 2009
2012-10-01	Hearing before Choo Han Teck J (October 2012 Hearing)
2012-01-01	Appeal to the Court of Appeal in CA 156 of 2012 (CA 156/2012 Hearing)
2014-01-01	Trial before Woo Bih Li J (2014 Trial)
2015-08-06	Judgment dated 6 August 2015
2015-09-21	Plaintiffs filed SUM 4309/2015
2015-11-30	Hearing of application on 30 November 2015
2015-12-01	Court ordered interim payment of $500,000
2015-12-11	Court ordered interim payment of $300,000
2017-01-01	Hearing on torts of conspiracy and inducement of breach of contract (2017 Torts Hearing)
2017-10-17	Supplementary judgment dated 17 October 2017
2018-11-22	Court of Appeal made decision on costs for CA 168/2015 and CA 171/2015
2018-12-14	R&T's costs submissions dated 14 December 2018
2018-12-14	Optimus’ submissions dated 14 December 2018
2018-11-30	Judgment reserved
2018-12-24	Judgment reserved
2019-02-27	Letter dated 27 February 2019 from the plaintiffs’ lawyers
2019-03-15	Judgment

7. Legal Issues

Liability for Costs
- Outcome: The court determined that SAA, Koh, Tan Senior, and Tan CB are jointly and severally liable for the costs to be granted to the plaintiffs.
- Category: Procedural
Certificate for Costs for Three Lawyers
- Outcome: The court did not grant a certificate for costs for three lawyers for the plaintiffs for the Four Hearings.
- Category: Procedural
Indemnity Costs
- Outcome: The court decided costs will be decided on a standard basis for the Four Hearings.
- Category: Procedural
Quantum of Costs
- Outcome: The court determined the quantum of costs for each of the Four Hearings, excluding disbursements.
- Category: Procedural
Quantum of Disbursements
- Outcome: The court considered the quantum of disbursements for the Four Hearings.
- Category: Procedural
Proportionality of Costs
- Outcome: The court considered the proportionality of costs in relation to the damages granted to the plaintiffs.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Costs
Disbursements

9. Cause of Actions

Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
Inducement of breach of contract

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] SGCA 21	Singapore	Cited to support the joinder of Tan Senior as a defendant.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] SGCA 79	Singapore	Cited for the Court of Appeal's order for Tan CB, SAA, and Koh to pay one set of costs for CA 168/2015 and Tan Senior to pay another separate set of costs for CA 171/2015.
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited regarding the costs of engaging an expert witness, but distinguished by the court.
Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Yang Qiang	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 524	Singapore	Cited regarding a litigant's entitlement to claim costs of attendance in court, but distinguished by the court.
Lam Hwa Engineering & Trading Pte Ltd v Yang Qiang	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 191	Singapore	Cited regarding a litigant's entitlement to claim costs of attendance in court, but distinguished by the court.
Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Takenaka Corp	N/A	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 1083	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that litigants may claim costs for their attendance as witnesses, but distinguished by the court.
Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy	N/A	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 576	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion to award costs for attendance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Costs
Disbursements
Joint and Several Liability
Indemnity Costs
Standard Basis
Certificate for Costs
Interim Payment
Proportionality
Four Hearings
2014 Trial
October 2012 Hearing
CA 156/2012 Hearing
2017 Torts Hearing

15.2 Keywords

costs
disbursements
civil procedure
litigation
singapore
court
judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	95
Civil Practice	75
Civil Procedure	75
Inducement of Breach of Contract	60
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	60
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Costs
Litigation