Beyonics v Goh Chan Peng: Appeal Leave Application on Trial Costs Order
In Beyonics Asia Pacific Limited and others v Goh Chan Peng and another, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the issue of whether the Plaintiffs required leave to appeal against a Trial Costs Order, given their pending appeal against the substantive judgment. The court, referencing Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investment Ltd and another appeal and Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ma Zhi and another, granted the Plaintiffs leave to appeal out of time, ensuring their position was protected should a separate notice of appeal be deemed necessary.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL court of the republic of singapore1.2 Outcome
Leave to appeal against the judgment on costs granted out of time.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal leave application concerning a trial costs order. The court granted leave to appeal out of time to protect the plaintiffs' position.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beyonics Technology (Senai) Sdn Bhd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Leave to appeal granted | Partial | |
| Beyonics Technology Electronic (Changshu) Co Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Leave to appeal granted | Partial | |
| Beyonics Precision (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Leave to appeal granted | Partial | |
| Goh Chan Peng | Defendant | Individual | Application opposed | Neutral | |
| Beyonics Asia Pacific Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Leave to appeal granted | Partial | |
| Beyonics International Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Leave to appeal granted | Partial | |
| Pacific Globe Enterprises Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Application opposed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Judgment was given on 28 May 2020.
- Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on 29 June 2020.
- The parties disagreed on the appropriate order for costs.
- The court ordered the Plaintiffs to pay the Defendants’ costs of the Henderson v Henderson Issue.
- The court ordered the Plaintiffs to pay two thirds of the Defendants' costs of the Substantive Issue.
- The Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal against the Trial Costs Order.
- The application for leave was made out of time.
5. Formal Citations
- Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng and another, Suit No 10 of 2018 (Summons No 56 of 2020), [2020] SGHC(I) 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit filed in Suit No 10 of 2018 | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment given in Beyonics Asia Pacific Limited and others v Goh Chan Peng and another [2020] SGHC(I) 14 | |
| Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal against the consequential order | |
| Judgment issued regarding costs | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court granted the Plaintiffs leave to appeal against the judgment on costs out of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 1
- [2016] 3 SLR 1264
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
- Extension of time to file notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beyonics Asia Pacific Limited and others v Goh Chan Peng and another | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC(I) 14 | Singapore | The judgment in this case defines terms used in the current judgment. |
| Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investment Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that where there is a substantive appeal and a notice of appeal is filed before a costs order is made in respect of the trial costs, if the appellant wishes only to challenge the costs order should the appeal succeed in part, no separate notice of appeal is required. |
| Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investments Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the date on which the Court of Appeal’s decision on the substantive appeal was given. |
| Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ma Zhi and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1264 | Singapore | Distinguished from the present case; Clearlab held that a separate notice of appeal and leave to appeal are required for a standalone appeal on costs. |
| Kosui Singapore Pte Ltd v Thangavelu | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Parliament’s intention in making the amendments to the SCJA to regulate or restrict the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal was to enable the Court’s efficient working by screening certain categories of appeals. |
| Wheeler v Somerfield and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1966] 2 QB 94 | England and Wales | Distinguished as concerning a different situation where both substantive and costs matters were pursued within a single appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leave to appeal
- Trial Costs Order
- Substantive Appeal
- Henderson v Henderson Issue
- Substantive Issue
- Costs of the trial
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Costs
- Leave
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Costs
- Leave to Appeal