BXS v BXT: Costs for Setting Aside Final Award in SICC Arbitration
In BXS v BXT, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the issue of costs following the dismissal of the Plaintiff's application to set aside a Final Award. The court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs, setting the amount at S$40,000, with simple interest at 5.33% per annum from the date of the judgment until payment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant’s costs of S$40,000.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the allocation and quantum of costs after dismissing an application to set aside a final arbitration award.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
BXS | Plaintiff | Corporation | Costs to be paid to Defendant | Lost | Koh Choon Guan Daniel, Er Hwee Lee Danna Dolly (Yu Huili), Ng Wei Ying |
BXT | Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Tan Beng Hwee Paul, Pang Yi Ching, Alessa, David Isidore Tan Huang Loong |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Anselmo Reyes | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Koh Choon Guan Daniel | Eldan Law LLP |
Er Hwee Lee Danna Dolly (Yu Huili) | Eldan Law LLP |
Ng Wei Ying | Eldan Law LLP |
Tan Beng Hwee Paul | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
Pang Yi Ching | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
Alessa | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
David Isidore Tan Huang Loong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff applied to set aside the Final Award (OS 1).
- The Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff's application (SUM 1035).
- The Defendant applied for an extension of time to file an affidavit in response in OS 1 (SUM 5770).
- The Assistant Registrar directed that the costs of SUM 5770 be in the cause.
- The Plaintiff behaved in a “highly culpable” manner by raising unmeritorious arguments in OS 1 and SUM 1035.
- The Final Award required the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant THB 91,153,182.62 (approximately S$4,010,740.04), together with costs of US$647,112.51 and interest.
- The Defendant incurred legal fees and disbursements in OS 1 amounting to S$116,733.84 in total.
5. Formal Citations
- BXS v BXT, Originating Summons No 1 of 2019 (Summons No 1035 of 2019), [2019] SGHC(I) 14
- BXS v BXT, , [2019] SGHC(I) 10
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Assistant Registrar directed that the costs of SUM 5770 be in the cause. | |
OS 1 was transferred to the SICC. | |
Pre-trial conference where the Plaintiff stated its agreement to the transfer of OS 1 was contingent on there being no difference in hearing and court fees. | |
Parties agreed to file sequential submissions on the costs of the three applications. | |
Judgment reserved. | |
Parties indicated they were content for the court to decide on costs based on their written submissions alone. | |
Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Allocation of Costs
- Outcome: The court assessed the Defendant's reasonable costs at S$40,000 all-in, considering the principles in CPIT Investments Limited v Qilin World Capital Limited and another [2018] SGHC(I) 2 and Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable costs
- Application of Appendix G
- Departure from Costs Guidelines
- Related Cases:
- [2018] SGHC(I) 2
8. Remedies Sought
- Determination of costs for OS 1
- Determination of costs for SUM 1035
- Determination of costs for SUM 5770
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- International Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CPIT Investments Limited v Qilin World Capital Limited and another | Singapore High Court (International) | Yes | [2018] SGHC(I) 2 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the assessment of costs in the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), particularly concerning the application of Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions and the concept of reasonable costs. |
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
- Appendix G
- Reasonable costs
- SICC
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- Final Award
- Taxation
- Disbursements
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- SICC
- Arbitration
- Singapore
- International Commercial Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- International Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Arbitration Law