Perry v Esculier: Cost Allocation in SICC Dispute Over Ponzi Scheme Investments

In Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and another, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the allocation of costs following a substantive judgment. The court ordered the Plaintiffs, Tamar Perry and Solid Fund Private Foundation, to pay the Defendants', Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele Thais and Jacques Henri Georges Esculier, costs and disbursements, adjusting the claimed amount for reasonableness and the outcome of a specific issue. The case involved a claim and counterclaim related to investments in a Ponzi scheme.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs to pay Defendants' costs and disbursements.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The SICC addresses cost allocation after a judgment concerning investments in a Ponzi scheme, considering proportionality and reasonableness.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tamar PerryPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualPay costs and disbursementsLost
Solid Fund Private FoundationPlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimTrustPay costs and disbursementsLost
Jacques Henri Georges EsculierDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualAwarded costs and disbursementsWon
Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele ThaisDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualAwarded costs and disbursementsWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Simon ThorleyInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yee Mun Howe GeraldPremier Law LLC
Koh Kuan Hong John PaulPremier Law LLC
Paul ChaistyPremier Law LLC
Colin LiewColin Liew LLC
Kam Su Cheun AurillLegal Clinic LLC
Lim Rui Hsien EstherLegal Clinic LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiffs and Defendants were involved in a dispute concerning investments in a Ponzi scheme.
  2. The Plaintiffs' claim was valued at approximately S$10 million.
  3. The Defendants' solicitor-and-client bill of costs amounted to S$940,000 in costs and S$293,065.60 in disbursements.
  4. The Plaintiffs disputed the Defendants' entitlement to full costs, alleging misconduct and irrelevant issues.
  5. The court deducted 10% from the costs payable to the Defendants due to the Plaintiffs' success on the JL Transfer issue.
  6. The court reduced the costs from S$846,000 to S$800,000 to account for overall reasonableness.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and another, Suit No 4 of 2020, [2022] SGHC(I) 13
  2. Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and another, , [2022] SGHC(I) 10

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Action transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court
Substantive Judgment handed down
Plaintiffs wrote to the court regarding costs
Parties' written submissions filed
Judgment without an oral hearing

7. Legal Issues

  1. Allocation of Costs
    • Outcome: The court determined the appropriate allocation of costs, considering factors such as reasonableness, proportionality, and the success of specific arguments.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonableness of costs
      • Proportionality of costs
      • Impact of unsuccessful arguments on cost allocation

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Recovery of Investments

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Investment Management

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic RepublicSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] SGHC(I) 6SingaporeCited for principles concerning costs before the SICC.
CBX and another v CBZ and othersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 88SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must have regard to the usual run of similar cases and not be misdirected by the amount a party is willing to spend.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and anotherSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 174SingaporeCited for the principle that the onus is on the losing party to demonstrate that work that was carried out was no different from the usual run of similar cases.
Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and anotherSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 245SingaporeCited to reinforce the complexity of the case and the acceptance of the case as an 'offshore' case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 110 r 46 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Costs
  • Disbursements
  • Reasonableness
  • Proportionality
  • Ponzi scheme
  • SICC
  • Solicitor-and-client costs
  • JL Transfer

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • SICC
  • Singapore International Commercial Court
  • Ponzi scheme
  • investment
  • litigation
  • dispute resolution

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs100
Civil Procedure90
Civil Litigation70
International Commercial Contracts40
Private International Law30
Commercial Law30
Arbitration30
International Commercial Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Litigation
  • Costs Assessment
  • International Commercial Disputes