Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng: Costs Against Bankrupt Litigants and Sponsors in Contempt of Court

In Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of cost allocation in a committal proceeding against Dr. Goh, an undischarged bankrupt, with Dr. Michelle Goh acting as his litigation sponsor. Mdm Wang sought indemnity costs against both Dr. Goh and Dr. Michelle Goh. The court ordered indemnity costs against Dr. Goh, citing his dishonest conduct, but declined to order costs against Dr. Michelle Goh, emphasizing the importance of access to legal representation in committal proceedings. The court ordered costs on an indemnity basis against Dr Goh fixed at S$40,000 plus disbursements of S$5,595.92.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Costs on an indemnity basis ordered against the first defendant, Dr. Goh, but costs not ordered against the second defendant, Dr. Michelle Goh.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered whether costs against a bankrupt litigant should be borne by their sponsor in a contempt of court case, ultimately ordering indemnity costs against the bankrupt only.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wang XiaopuPlaintiffIndividualPartial WinPartial
Goh Seng HengDefendantIndividualLostLost
Goh Ming Li MichelleDefendantIndividualWonWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Wang is a director and shareholder of Guangdong Marubi Biotechnology Co. Ltd.
  2. The defendants, Dr. Goh and Dr. Michelle Goh, are medical doctors.
  3. Dr. Goh was declared a bankrupt on 19 March 2020.
  4. The original dispute arose from agreements for Mdm Wang to purchase shares in AMP.
  5. Dr. Goh failed to pay the sum ordered by the court.
  6. Dr. Michelle Goh gave an undertaking to fund Dr. Goh’s legal fees.
  7. Dr. Goh was found to be in contempt of court and sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another, Suit No 686 of 2015, [2022] SGHC 272

6. Timeline

DateEvent
AMP incorporated by Dr Goh.
Main action Suit 686 filed.
Woo Bih Li J ordered Dr Goh to repay sales proceeds in Wang Xiaopu 2019.
Dr Goh declared a bankrupt.
Mdm Wang applied for an order of committal against Mr Goh in HC/SUM 5041/2020.
Lee Seiu Kin J found Dr Goh to be in contempt of court in Wang Xiaopu 2021.
Dr Goh’s appeal against the sentence in CA/CA 66/2021 was dismissed.
Parties heard on costs.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs against non-parties
    • Outcome: The court declined to order costs against the second defendant, Dr. Michelle Goh, as the circumstances of the present case did not justify making that order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 3 SLR 542
  2. Indemnity costs
    • Outcome: The court ordered costs on an indemnity basis against the first defendant, Dr. Goh, due to his dishonest conduct.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 5 SLR 103

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order of committal
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Insolvency Law

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 284SingaporeCited for the original dispute and the order for Dr. Goh to repay sales proceeds.
DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte Ltd and another appealSingapore Court of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 542SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has the discretion to award costs against a non-party if it is just to do so.
Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 282SingaporeCited for finding Dr. Goh in contempt of court for intentionally withholding information and lying on affidavit.
Goh Seng Heng v Wang XiaopuSingapore Court of AppealYes[2022] SGCA 48SingaporeCited for the dismissal of Dr. Goh's appeal against the sentence and the order for him to pay costs.
Goh Heng Seng v Wang XiaopuSingapore Court of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 66SingaporeCited for recognizing that a sponsor who assists a bankrupt to pursue his appeal could be a potential non-party against whom costs can be ordered in the event that the appeal fails.
Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd and othersHigh Court of Justice, Chancery DivisionYes[2000] 2 Costs LR 169EnglandCited for the principle that third-party sponsors of impecunious litigants may be liable for costs in certain circumstances.
Hamilton v Al Fayed (No 2)England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2002] EWCA Civ 665EnglandCited for the principle that pure funding of litigation ought generally to be regarded as being in the public interest.
Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 103SingaporeCited for the principle that a party’s dishonest, abusive or improper conduct in the course of proceedings would be one of the categories of conduct which may provide good reason for an order of indemnity costs to be made.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 59 r 2(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed)
Order 59 r 5(b) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Costs
  • Indemnity basis
  • Bankrupt
  • Litigation sponsor
  • Contempt of court
  • Committal proceedings
  • Undertaking
  • Official Assignee

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • bankruptcy
  • litigation
  • sponsor
  • contempt
  • court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Bankruptcy
  • Contempt of Court