Larpin v Nargolwala: Application for Indemnity Costs in SICC Dispute

In Larpin, Christian Alfred and Quo Vadis Investments Limited v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and Aparna Nargolwala, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the defendants' application for indemnity costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim. The court, presided over by Roger Giles IJ, refused the application, holding that indemnity costs are not applicable in the SICC costs regime and finding no unreasonable conduct by the plaintiffs to warrant such an order.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendants' application refused.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Singapore International Commercial Court denied the defendants' application for indemnity costs, finding no unreasonable conduct by the plaintiffs.

1.7 Decision Date

24 April 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Quo Vadis Investments Limited	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application for indemnity costs refused	Lost	Harjean Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP Christopher Anand Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Keith Valentine Lee Jia Jin of Advocatus Law LLP
Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala	Defendant	Individual	Application for indemnity costs refused	Neutral	Edmond Lim Tian Zhong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Natalie Ng of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Aparna Nargolwala	Defendant	Individual	Application for indemnity costs refused	Neutral	Edmond Lim Tian Zhong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Natalie Ng of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy of Allen & Gledhill LLP
Larpin, Christian Alfred	Plaintiff	Individual	Application for indemnity costs refused	Lost	Harjean Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP Christopher Anand Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Keith Valentine Lee Jia Jin of Advocatus Law LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Roger Giles	International Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Harjean Kaur	Advocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand Daniel	Advocatus Law LLP
Keith Valentine Lee Jia Jin	Advocatus Law LLP
Edmond Lim Tian Zhong	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Natalie Ng	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

The defendants applied for indemnity costs for work done from 29 March 2021.
The defendants sent Calderbank letters to the plaintiffs offering discontinuance with no order as to costs.
The plaintiffs refused to admit facts in a Notice to Admit Facts.
The plaintiffs' claim for undoing the purchase of the Villa failed at the hurdle of misrepresentation.
The court found that the plaintiffs' proceedings were not unreasonably brought or an abuse of process.

5. Formal Citations

Larpin, Christian Alfred and another v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and another, Suit No 3 of 2020, [2022] SGHC(I) 7
Larpin, Christian Alfred and another v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and another, , [2022] SGHC(I) 4

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-10-07	Proceedings commenced
2019-11-20	Pleadings closed with the filing of the Reply
2020-02-05	Judgment in the Lew proceedings at first instance was given
2020-04-02	Case transferred from the High Court to the SICC
2020-07-06	Defendants sent Calderbank letter
2021-02-10	Judgment in the Lew proceedings on appeal was given
2021-03-29	Defendants sent Calderbank letter
2021-06-14	Defendants served Notice to Admit Facts
2022-02-21	Main Judgment given
2022-03-02	Defendants applied for an additional order for indemnity costs
2022-03-10	Plaintiffs opposed the application
2022-03-29	Defendants responded to the plaintiffs’ submission that indemnity costs did not apply
2022-03-29	Judgment reserved
2022-04-25	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Indemnity Costs
- Outcome: The court held that indemnity costs as distinct from standard costs does not arise in the SICC costs regime as applicable to these proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 496
  - [2018] 4 SLR 38
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267
  - [2021] SGHC 33
  - [2021] SGCA 100
  - [2022] 3 SLR 174
  - [2019] 1 SLR 83

8. Remedies Sought

Indemnity Costs

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
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 496	Singapore	Cited as a significant difficulty in obtaining indemnity for irrecoverable costs.
CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another	Singapore International Commercial Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 38	Singapore	Cited for the principle that Order 59 of the Rules of Court, including provisions for standard and indemnity costs, does not apply to proceedings in the SICC.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an offer to settle should contain an element of compromise to induce settlement, not just to set up payment of costs on the indemnity basis.
GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as ChanSau Yan Associates) and another, third parties)	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 33	Singapore	Cited regarding the exceptional circumstances or unreasonable conduct required for an order for indemnity costs.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (interim judicial managers appointed)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] SGCA 100	Singapore	Cited regarding the exceptional circumstances or unreasonable conduct required for an order for indemnity costs.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Corporation Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2022] 3 SLR 174	Singapore	Cited to support that indemnity costs are inapplicable in the SICC and that Order 59 does not apply to proceedings in the SICC.
BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 83	Singapore	Cited regarding the Court's observation that the concept of costs on an 'indemnity basis' is irrelevant to proceedings in the SICC.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1285	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a Calderbank offer is one factor that the court will take into consideration in the exercise of its discretion to award costs.
Gomba Holdings (UK ) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1993] Ch 171	England and Wales	Cited as an example where the court exercised discretion in line with the contractual entitlement of the Bank to costs on the basis of a full indemnity.
Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas	N/A	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 909	Singapore	Cited as an example where the court exercised discretion in line with the contractual entitlement of the Bank to costs on the basis of a full indemnity.
NSL Oilchem Waste Management Pte Ltd v Prosper Marine Pte Ltd and other suits	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 204	Singapore	Cited as an example where the court exercised discretion in line with the contractual entitlement of the Bank to costs on the basis of a full indemnity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 110 Rule 46 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Order 59 of the Rules of Court
Order 22 of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Indemnity costs
Standard costs
Calderbank letter
Reasonable costs
SICC costs regime
Offer to settle

15.2 Keywords

indemnity costs
SICC
Singapore International Commercial Court
costs
civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Costs	90
Singapore International Commercial Court Practice	80
Civil Practice	75
Civil Procedure	75
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Costs in legal proceedings
Singapore International Commercial Court
Civil Procedure