W. Power Group EOOD v. Ming Yang Wind Power: Security for Costs Application

In the Singapore International Commercial Court, W. Power Group EOOD (Claimant) was ordered to provide security for costs to Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd (Defendant). After the Claimant failed to provide the security, the Defendant sought costs for the application. The court ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs of the application in SUM 13, assessed at $6,000 inclusive of disbursements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Order that the Claimant pay the Defendant’s costs of the application in SUM 13 assessed in the amount of $6,000 inclusive of disbursements.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Singapore International Commercial Court ordered W. Power Group EOOD to pay Ming Yang Wind Power's costs of $6,000 for a security for costs application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
W. Power Group EOODClaimantCorporationOrder to pay costsLost
Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. LtdDefendantCorporationCosts awardedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Thomas BathurstInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Han Wah TengCTLC Law Corporation
William Ong Boon HweeAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ivan Lim Jun RuiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Wong Pei TingAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Claimant was ordered to provide security for the Defendant’s costs up to the commencement of trial in the amount of $70,000.
  2. The security was to be provided by 6 October 2023.
  3. The Claimant failed to provide that security and did not seek any extension of time to do so.
  4. The Claimant wished to make further arguments in respect of SUM 13.
  5. The Court rejected the request for further arguments.
  6. The Court directed the Claimant to provide its written submissions as to the quantum of the Defendant’s costs in respect of SUM 13.
  7. The Court directed the Claimant to provide submissions as to why the proceedings should not be dismissed if the security was not supplied by 6 November 2023.

5. Formal Citations

  1. W Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd, Originating Application No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 13 of 2023), [2023] SGHC(I) 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Proceedings transferred from the General Division of the High Court to the Singapore International Commercial Court
Judgment delivered ordering the Claimant to provide security for the Defendant’s costs
Deadline for Claimant to provide security
Claimant’s lawyers wrote to the Court indicating that they wished to make further arguments in respect of SUM 13
Court rejected the request for further arguments
Claimant filed submissions
Judgment reserved
Deadline for Claimant to provide security or proceedings are dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Quantum of costs for application for security
    • Outcome: The court determined the quantum of costs for the application for security to be $6,000 inclusive of disbursements.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Non-compliance with Rules of Court
    • Outcome: The court ordered that unless the Claimant provides security in accordance with Order 1 of the Judgment of 29 September 2023 on or before 17 November 2023 the proceedings are dismissed.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Security for costs
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
W Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2023] SGHC(I) 15SingaporeCited for the order that the claimant provide security for the defendant’s costs.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2023] SGCA(I) 8SingaporeCited for the principle that a successful litigant in the SICC should not be unfairly put out of pocket.
Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries LtdCourt of AppealYes[2023] 1 SLR 96SingaporeCited for the subjective basis on which costs are assessed in proceedings in the SICC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Quantum of costs
  • SICC Rules
  • Disbursements

15.2 Keywords

  • security for costs
  • costs
  • civil procedure
  • SICC
  • Singapore International Commercial Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs95
Civil Procedure90
Costs85
Quantum of costs80
Rules of court75
Non-compliance70
International Arbitration50
Arbitration50
Summary Judgement40
Jurisdiction30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs