Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management: Cost Allocation in Fraudulent Inducement Case

In Suit No 79 of 2018, the High Court of Singapore, General Division, with Choo Han Teck J presiding, ruled on the issue of costs in the case of Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte Ltd, AKS Consultants Pte Ltd, Kamil Bin Jumat, and Gangadhara Brhmendra Srikanth Maroju. The court held the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally liable for costs amounting to $300,000 plus disbursements, following a finding that they acted in tandem to fraudulently induce the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Costs awarded against the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed cost allocation among defendants in a case of fraudulent inducement, holding them jointly and severally liable for $300,000 in costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Gangadhara Brhmendra Srikanth MarojuDefendantIndividualNo costs awarded againstNeutral
Epoch Minerals Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationCosts awardedWon
Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCosts awarded againstLost
AKS Consultants Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCosts awarded againstLost
Kamil Bin JumatDefendantIndividualCosts awarded againstLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Christopher Chong Chi ChuinDrew & Napier LLC
Josh TanDrew & Napier LLC
Glenna LiewRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jeremy Gan Eng TongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Kevin TanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Andrew GohDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP
Ashok Kumar RaiCairnhill Law LLC
Derek Kang Yu HsienCairnhill Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff sought costs of $350,000.
  2. The second defendant's counsel submitted that $100,000 was sufficient for costs.
  3. The third defendant's counsel submitted that costs should be $93,000.
  4. The fourth defendant's counsel submitted that costs should be ordered after the appeal is heard.
  5. The court awarded $300,000 costs plus disbursements against the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd v Raffles Asset Management (S) Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 79 of 2018, [2022] SGHC 21

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed (Suit No 79 of 2018)
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Quantum of Costs
    • Outcome: The court awarded $300,000 in costs plus disbursements against the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Joint and Several Liability for Costs
    • Outcome: The court held the second to fourth defendants jointly and severally liable for costs due to their coordinated actions.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Costs
  • Joint and Several Liability
  • Quantum
  • Disbursements

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • civil procedure
  • singapore
  • high court
  • joint and several liability

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Civil Procedure80
Civil Practice75

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs Allocation