CBB v Law Society of Singapore: Costs Order in Judicial Review of Regulatory Function

In CBB v Law Society of Singapore, the High Court addressed the issue of costs following a judicial review. The Applicant, CBB, sought costs after successfully challenging a decision by the Council of the Law Society. Aedit Abdullah J determined that no costs order should be made against the Law Society, considering the mixed outcome of the case and the Law Society's public regulatory function. The court applied both the general approach to costs and the Baxendale-Walker principle as synthesized in Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

No costs order made against the Respondent.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Supplementary Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Supplementary grounds for a costs order. The court considered the outcome, the points the Applicant did not succeed on, and the Law Society's regulatory function.

1.7 Decision Date

18 March 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Law Society of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	No costs order made against the Respondent	Won	Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael of Kenneth Tan Partnership
CBB	Applicant	Individual	Costs not awarded	Lost	Jamal Siddique Peer of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Sarjit Singh Gill of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Leong Woon Ho of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Suah Boon Choong of Shook Lin & Bok LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aedit Abdullah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Jamal Siddique Peer	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Sarjit Singh Gill	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Leong Woon Ho	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Suah Boon Choong	Shook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

The Applicant sought costs of S$30,000 with disbursements of around S$8,000.
The Respondent argued that no costs order should be made against it as the Council was performing a public function.
The Applicant succeeded in the main judgment in obtaining an order to quash the Council’s decision not to apply for leave.
The Applicant made several failed arguments relating to the limitation period under the Legal Profession Act.
The court found that the Respondent had committed Wednesbury irrationality or unreasonableness.

5. Formal Citations

CBB v Law Society of Singapore, Originating Summons No 1382 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 56
CBB v The Law Society of Singapore, , [2019] SGHC 293

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-01-01	Originating Summons No 1382 of 2018 filed
2019-07-15	Hearing date
2019-01-01	Main judgment issued in CBB v The Law Society of Singapore [2019] SGHC 293
2020-02-17	Hearing date
2020-03-19	Supplementary grounds of decision issued

7. Legal Issues

Costs in Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court determined that no costs order should be made against the Respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 1 SLR 797
  - [2015] 1 WLR 3575
  - [2015] 2 SLR 1179
  - [2007] SLR (R) 95
  - [2011] 2 SLR 1279
  - [2008] 1 WLR 426
Regulatory Function and Costs
- Outcome: The court considered the Law Society's regulatory function as a factor in determining whether to award costs.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 2 SLR 1279
  - [2008] 1 WLR 426
  - [2015] 2 SLR 1179
Wednesbury Irrationality
- Outcome: The court found that Wednesbury irrationality alone does not require a cost order to be made.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 797	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that costs may be awarded in judicial review proceedings.
Regina (Hunt) v North Somerset Council	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2015] 1 WLR 3575	United Kingdom	Cited for the proposition that costs may be awarded in judicial review proceedings.
Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 1179	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no statutory or regulatory authority is immune from an adverse cost order and for the synthesis of the Baxendale-Walker principle.
Re Shankar Alan s/o Anant Kulkarni	N/A	Yes	[2007] SLR (R) 95	Singapore	Cited by the Respondent in relation to the argument that no costs order should be made against it as the Council was performing a public function.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Cited by the Respondent for the principle that the Council was performing a public function.
Baxendale-Walker v Law Society	N/A	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 426	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that regulatory bodies should generally not be subject to adverse cost orders when performing public functions.
Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 173	Singapore	Cited by the Applicant in relation to the argument that he could not be faulted for canvassing all relevant arguments as new points would generally not be allowed on appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 59 R 3(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Costs
Judicial Review
Regulatory Function
Wednesbury Irrationality
Public Interest

15.2 Keywords

costs
judicial review
law society
regulatory function
singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	95
Civil Practice	75
Judicial Review	70
Administrative Law	60
Legal Profession Act	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Costs
Judicial Review
Regulatory Law