Tey Leng Yen v Mai Xun Yao: Appeal for Permission to Appeal Costs Award

In Tey Leng Yen v Mai Xun Yao, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 July 2023, Tey Leng Yen applied for permission to appeal against a District Judge's decision regarding a costs award in favor of Mai Xun Yao. The District Judge had reversed a Deputy Registrar's initial costs award to Tey Leng Yen, citing the failure to consider an offer to settle made by Mai Xun Yao. The High Court, Tan Siong Thye SJ, found Tey Leng Yen's application unmeritorious, holding that the threshold for granting permission to appeal had not been met and dismissed the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Tey Leng Yen seeks permission to appeal a costs award decision favoring Mai Xun Yao. The court dismissed the application, finding no prima facie error.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tey Leng YenApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Mai Xun YaoRespondentIndividualWonWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng HweelonTitanium Law Chambers LLC
Isabel Ho Ci XianTitanium Law Chambers LLC
Sharon Chong Chin YeeRHTLaw Asia LLP
Kwong Yan Li CallieRHTLaw Asia LLP

4. Facts

  1. Applicant sought permission to appeal a District Judge's decision on costs.
  2. The District Judge reversed the Deputy Registrar's costs award due to an unconsidered offer to settle.
  3. The Applicant and Respondent were business partners in two companies.
  4. The parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the companies' operations and receivables.
  5. The Respondent made an offer to settle which the Applicant did not accept.
  6. The District Judge found that the judgment obtained by the Applicant was not more favorable than the terms of the offer to settle.
  7. The Deputy Registrar did not consider the offer to settle when making the initial costs award.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tey Leng Yen v Mai Xun Yao, Originating Application No 391 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 194

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant commenced a suit in the District Court, DC/DC 45/2018, against the Respondent.
Respondent made an offer to settle.
The Respondent appealed to the High Court against the decision of the DR, but the appeal was dismissed.
The DR awarded costs of $40,000 in favour of the Applicant.
The Respondent wrote to the DR to reconsider the costs award.
The DR replied that her decision on costs made on 18 November 2022 was to stand.
The DJ allowed the Respondent’s appeal in RA 85 and awarded costs of $20,000 in the Respondent’s favour.
The DJ dismissed SUM 706.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Permission to Appeal
    • Outcome: The court held that the threshold for permission to appeal had not been met.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862
      • [2021] 2 SLR 683
  2. Costs Award
    • Outcome: The court upheld the District Judge's decision to award costs to the Respondent.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court considered the offer to settle in determining the appropriate costs award.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Permission to appeal
  2. Setting aside the DJ’s decision

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Appellate Practice

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the applicable legal principles for permission to appeal.
Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 683SingaporeAffirmed the principles in Lee Kuan Yew for permission to appeal.
Rodeo Power Pte Ltd and others v Tong Seak Kan and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC(A) 16SingaporeCited for the principle that permission to appeal may be granted in exceptional circumstances where the error is one of fact which is obvious from the record.
Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng DavidHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 SLR 718SingaporeCited for the principle that due weight should be given to the Registrar's decision.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 90SingaporeCited for the proposition that it would not be in the interests of justice if judges in chambers entered into detailed examination of all the matters that were before the master in order to decide whether they would have come to the same decision as the master.
Hoddle v CCF ConstructionN/AYes[1992] 2 All ER 550N/ACited for the proposition that it would not be in the interests of justice if judges in chambers entered into detailed examination of all the matters that were before the master in order to decide whether they would have come to the same decision as the master.
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the principle that where the requirements above are fulfilled, the plaintiff should have accepted the offer to settle instead of proceeding to judgment.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte LtdN/AYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20SingaporeCited for the principle that the monetary sum offered in an offer to settle is only one factor to be taken into account in determining whether the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is more favorable than an offer to settle.
Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co LtdN/AYes[2015] 3 SLR 267SingaporeCited for the principle that there is nothing in Order 22A r 9(3) of the ROC 2014 which requires an offer to settle to be one which settles the entirety of the proceedings, or which prevents an offer to settle from dealing with non-monetary claims and what is important in assessing an offer to settle is whether it is a serious and genuine offer to settle.
Anglo-Cyprian Trade Agencies Ltd v Paphos Wine Industries LtdN/AYes[1951] 1 All ER 873N/ACited for the general principle that where a plaintiff is only awarded nominal damages, the plaintiff should not be regarded as a successful party and costs should be awarded to the defendant as if he had succeeded in his defence.
Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle AssociationN/AYes[2021] 1 SLR 513SingaporeCited for the principle that the non-monetary value that the plaintiff may obtain from a judgment should not be accounted for when analysing whether the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is one which was not more favorable than the terms of the offer to settle.
Bellingham, Alex v Reed, MichaelN/AYes[2022] 4 SLR 513SingaporeCited for the principle that an applicant must show something more than just his disagreement with the court’s decision.
Tey Leng Yen v Mai Xun YaoDistrict CourtYes[2021] SGDC 65SingaporeBackground facts of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 19 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Permission to appeal
  • Costs award
  • Offer to settle
  • Prima facie case of error
  • General principle
  • Settlement agreement
  • Nominal damages

15.2 Keywords

  • Permission to appeal
  • Costs
  • Offer to settle
  • Singapore High Court
  • Civil litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Offer to Settle90
Costs85
Civil Procedure75
Appellate Practice60
Judgments and Orders50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Costs