Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction: Appeal Leave for Costs Order in Construction Dispute

Ser Kim Koi applied for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division of the High Court against a costs order made by a judge of the General Division of the High Court, related to a construction dispute with GTMS Construction Pte Ltd, Chan Sau Yan, and CSYA Pte Ltd. The court granted leave, clarifying that a single notice of appeal could have been filed for both the substantive judgment and the costs judgment, and directed that the appeal on costs be heard together with the substantive appeal. The court ordered Ser Kim Koi to pay GTMS $1,000 in costs for the leave application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Leave to appeal against the costs order granted; appeal on costs to be heard together with the substantive appeal.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for leave to appeal a costs order. The court granted leave, clarifying the requirements for appealing costs orders alongside substantive appeals.

1.7 Decision Date

25 March 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ser Kim Koi	Applicant, Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim	Individual	Leave to appeal granted	Partial	Toh Wei Qing, Geraldine of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Kirindeep Singh of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Ajinderpal Singh of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Tan Hui Min Beverly of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Thng Hui Lin Melissa of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd	Respondent, Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim	Corporation	Partial Win	Partial	Yap Wei Xuan Mendel of Ling Das & Partners Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam of Ling Das & Partners
CSYA Pte Ltd	Respondent, Third Party, Third Parties in counterclaim	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Thio Shen Yi SC of TSMP Law Corporation Uday Duggal of TSMP Law Corporation Monisha Cheong of TSMP Law Corporation
Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates)	Respondent, Third Party, Third Parties in counterclaim	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Thio Shen Yi SC of TSMP Law Corporation Uday Duggal of TSMP Law Corporation Monisha Cheong of TSMP Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Toh Wei Qing, Geraldine	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Kirindeep Singh	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Ajinderpal Singh	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Tan Hui Min Beverly	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Thng Hui Lin Melissa	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Yap Wei Xuan Mendel	Ling Das & Partners
Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam	Ling Das & Partners
Thio Shen Yi SC	TSMP Law Corporation
Uday Duggal	TSMP Law Corporation
Monisha Cheong	TSMP Law Corporation

4. Facts

Ser Kim Koi engaged GTMS Construction as the main contractor for a project to build three Good Class Bungalows.
Ser Kim Koi engaged Chan Sau Yan as the architect for the project.
GTMS Construction sued Ser Kim Koi for unpaid construction costs.
Chan Sau Yan and CSYA Pte Ltd were joined as third parties to the action.
The Judge dismissed most of Ser's claims and allowed the claims of GTMS and Chan/CSYA.
The Judge ordered Ser to pay costs to GTMS and Chan/CSYA on a standard and indemnity basis.
Ser filed a Notice of Appeal against the Main Judgment and an Originating Summons for leave to appeal against the Costs Judgment.

5. Formal Citations

Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd and others, Originating Summons No 7 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 2
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and another, third parties), , [2021] SGHC 9
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and another, third parties), , [2021] SGHC 33

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-01-13	Writ of Summons filed
2014-01-29	Third Party Notice issued
2017-03-06	Deadline for Ser to accept offer to settle
2018-11-08	Trial commenced
2021-01-18	Main Judgment delivered
2021-02-10	Costs Judgment issued
2021-02-15	Notice of Appeal against Main Judgment filed
2021-02-17	Originating Summons for leave to appeal against Costs Judgment filed
2021-03-22	Hearing
2021-03-26	Grounds of decision

7. Legal Issues

Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: Leave to appeal against the costs order was granted, with the appeal to be heard together with the substantive appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Requirements for appealing costs orders
  - Consolidation of appeals
  - Standalone appeal
Costs
- Outcome: The court did not make a final ruling on the appropriateness of the costs order, but clarified the procedure for appealing such orders.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Indemnity basis costs
  - Standard basis costs

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal of costs order

9. Cause of Actions

Claim for unpaid construction costs
Claim for architect's fees

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Construction Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and another, third parties)	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 9	Singapore	Refers to the main judgment in the case, where the Judge dismissed most of Ser's claims and allowed the claims of GTMS for unpaid construction costs and of Chan and CSYA for architect's fees.
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and another, third parties)	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 33	Singapore	Refers to the costs judgment in the case, where Ser was ordered to pay costs to GTMS and Chan/CSYA on a standard and indemnity basis.
Clearlab SG Pte Ltd v Ma Zhi and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1264	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appeal on substantive issues should be genuine and not a smokescreen to smuggle in issues on costs without getting leave. Also discussed the implications of consolidating appeals on substantive issues and costs.
Wheeler v Somerfield and others	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1966] 2 QB 94	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if substantive issues in an appeal are genuine, it cannot be said that the only issue on appeal is one of costs, even if the appellant does not succeed on the substantive issues.
Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investments Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's power to deal with costs even if no Notice of Appeal had been filed on costs, and the possibility of amending a Notice of Appeal against a substantive decision to include an appeal on costs.
Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng and another	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 235	Singapore	Cited regarding the prudence of seeking leave to file a second Notice of Appeal on costs where it is too late to file a single Notice of 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
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Leave to appeal
Costs order
Substantive appeal
Consolidation
Indemnity basis
Standard basis
Originating Summons
Notice of Appeal

15.2 Keywords

Appeal
Costs
Construction
Leave to appeal
Singapore
High Court
Judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	90
Leave to Appeal	85
Appellate Practice	80
Civil Procedure	75
Construction Law	40
Breach of Contract	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Appeals
Costs
Construction Dispute