BTN v BTP: Costs Judgment for Setting Aside Arbitral Award Application

The High Court of Singapore issued a judgment on costs in the case between BTN and BTO (Plaintiffs) and BTP and BTQ (Defendants) following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' application to set aside a partial arbitral award. The court fixed the costs for the originating summons at $50,000 plus disbursements of $6,183.56, rejecting the defendants' request for indemnity costs and applying a standard basis for cost assessment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs to pay the defendants costs of $50,000 plus disbursements of $6,183.56.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment on Costs

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Costs judgment regarding an application to set aside a partial arbitral award. The court fixed costs at $50,000 plus disbursements.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BTNPlaintiffCorporationCosts awarded againstLost
BTOPlaintiffCorporationCosts awarded againstLost
BTPDefendantIndividualCosts awarded in favorWon
BTQDefendantIndividualCosts awarded in favorWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Swee YenWongPartnership LLP
Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SCWongPartnership LLP
Low Sze HuiWongPartnership LLP
Jasmine (Liu Sihui)WongPartnership LLP
Quek Yi Zhi, Joel (Guo Yizhi)WongPartnership LLP
Chew Kei-JinAscendant Legal LLC
Tyne LamAscendant Legal LLC
Tan Silin, Stephanie (Chen Silin)Ascendant Legal LLC
Yeo Chuan Tat (Yang Quanda)Ascendant Legal LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiffs applied to set aside a partial arbitral award.
  2. The High Court dismissed the application with costs on 16 September 2019.
  3. The plaintiffs' appeal was also dismissed on 23 October 2020.
  4. The defendants sought indemnity costs for the originating summons.
  5. The Court of Appeal denied the defendants' application for indemnity costs.
  6. The defendants' counsel applied to the High Court to fix the quantum of costs.
  7. The court determined the appropriate quantum of costs based on a standard basis.

5. Formal Citations

  1. BTN and another v BTP and another, Originating Summons No 683 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 38

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Originating Summons No 683 of 2018 filed
High Court dismissed OS 683 with costs
Plaintiffs’ appeal dismissed
Court of Appeal awarded costs fixed at $55,000 inclusive of disbursements
Defendants applied to the High Court to fix the quantum of costs
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Quantum of Costs
    • Outcome: The court fixed the costs for the originating summons at $50,000 plus disbursements of $6,183.56.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Indemnity Costs
    • Outcome: The court rejected the defendants' request for indemnity costs, applying a standard basis for cost assessment.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Costs
  2. Indemnity Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BTN and another v BTP and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 1250SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision to dismiss the application to set aside the partial arbitral award.
BTN and another v BTP and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 105SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the appeal.
A v RHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2010] 3 HKC 67Hong KongCited for the Hong Kong approach of awarding indemnity costs when an arbitral award is unsuccessfully challenged.
Gao Haiyan and another v Keeneye Holdings Ltd and anotherHong Kong Court of AppealYes[2012] HKCU 226Hong KongCited for affirming the Hong Kong approach in A v R regarding indemnity costs.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte LtdN/AYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20SingaporeCited for the principle that an order for indemnity costs is appropriate only in exceptional circumstances.
Tan Chin Yew Joseph v Saxo Capital Markets Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] SGHC 274SingaporeCited for the high burden on a party seeking an order for indemnity costs.
Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 103SingaporeCited for identifying non-exhaustive categories of conduct that may provide good reason to order indemnity costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Indemnity costs
  • Standard basis
  • Quantum of costs
  • Arbitral award
  • Setting aside
  • Disbursements

15.2 Keywords

  • Arbitration
  • Costs
  • Singapore
  • Legal
  • Judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Civil Procedure85
Indemnity costs80
Arbitration75
Setting aside70

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs