Agency for Policy Coordination v Batbold: Inquiry into Damages for Freezing Order
The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others brought a claim of corruption against Batbold Sukhbaatar and others in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. After a freezing order against the fifth and sixth defendants was discharged, the court considered whether to order an inquiry into damages. The court declined to order an inquiry as to damages, holding that the difference between full legal expenses and assessed costs is not recoverable as damages pursuant to an undertaking as to damages.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Inquiry as to damages declined.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court considered an inquiry into damages after a freezing order was discharged, focusing on whether unrecovered legal costs constitute relevant loss.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia | Plaintiff | Government Agency | |||
| Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Erdenes Oyu Tolgoi LLC | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Batbold Sukhbaatar | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Cheong Choo Young | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Kim Hak Seon | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Cliveden Trading AG | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Goin Barry Saadien | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Everest VC Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application for inquiry as to damages declined | Lost | |
| Ponduver Pte Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Application for inquiry as to damages declined | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A freezing order was granted against the fifth and sixth defendants on 27 November 2020.
- The freezing order was discharged on 16 April 2021.
- The fifth and sixth defendants sought an inquiry as to damages.
- The plaintiffs provided an undertaking to compensate the defendants for loss caused by the Freezing Order.
- The plaintiffs' solicitors were discharged due to a lack of instructions.
- The action against the fifth and sixth defendants was dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The fifth and sixth defendants limited their claim to the difference between full legal expenses and costs awarded.
5. Formal Citations
- The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others, Suit No 1145 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 318
- The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others, , [2021] SGHC 91
- The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others, , [2021] 5 SLR 556
- Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals, , [2015] 1 SLR 496
- Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits, , [2014] 1 SLR 245
- Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd, , [2022] SGCA(I) 10
- Ennismore Fund Management Ltd v Fenris Consulting Ltd, , [2022] UKPC 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Freezing Order granted against the fifth and sixth defendants. | |
| Freezing Order discharged. | |
| Question of an inquiry as to damages reserved. | |
| Rev Law’s application for their discharge as solicitors for the plaintiffs granted. | |
| Action against fifth and sixth defendants dismissed. | |
| Hearing on application for an inquiry as to damages. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Inquiry as to Damages
- Outcome: The court declined to order an inquiry as to damages.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 2 SLR 737
- Recovery of Legal Costs
- Outcome: The court held that the difference between full legal expenses and assessed costs is not recoverable as damages pursuant to an undertaking as to damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 496
- [2022] SGCA(I) 10
- Undertaking as to Damages
- Outcome: The court held that the undertaking as to damages does not cover the legal costs incurred in applying to set aside the injunction.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] UKPC 27
8. Remedies Sought
- Inquiry as to damages
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 737 | Singapore | Cited for the three questions for consideration when deciding whether to enforce the undertaking as to damages and order an inquiry into damages. |
| The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 91 | Singapore | Cited for the decision to discharge the freezing order. |
| The Agency for Policy Coordination on State Property of Mongolia and others v Batbold Sukhbaatar and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 556 | Singapore | Cited for procedural history and an outline of the claims made. |
| Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 496 | Singapore | Cited for the general rule on the recovery of costs of previous legal proceedings as damages in subsequent proceedings. |
| Berry v British Transport Commission | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1962] 1 QB 306 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the rationale for the general rule on recovery of costs. |
| Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 245 | Singapore | Cited for the need to achieve finality in litigation as well as the need to suppress parasitic litigation. |
| Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] SGCA(I) 10 | Singapore | Cited for the policy considerations underpinning the separate costs regime for the Singapore International Commercial Court from those underpinning the costs regime in the High Court. |
| Ennismore Fund Management Ltd v Fenris Consulting Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [2022] UKPC 27 | Cayman Islands | Cited for the principle that the undertaking operates as if it were a contract between the applicant for an injunction and the respondent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Freezing order
- Inquiry as to damages
- Undertaking as to damages
- Party-and-party costs
- Legal expenses
- Dissipation
- Want of prosecution
15.2 Keywords
- freezing order
- injunction
- damages
- legal costs
- Singapore
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Freezing Order | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Injunctions | 75 |
| Costs | 70 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Damages
- Injunctions
- Costs