Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH Ltd: Dispute over Bond Amount Release and Pre-Judgment Interest

In a dispute between Transpac Investments Limited (TIL) and TIH Limited (TIH) before the Singapore International Commercial Court, the court addressed outstanding issues of costs and pre-judgment interest following a prior judgment in favor of TIL. The court ordered TIH to pay TIL $790,500 for costs and disbursements, but declined to award pre-judgment interest. The claim involved a dispute over the release of a bond amount and allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

The court assessed the post-transfer costs payable by TIH to TIL in the total sum of $805,500 including disbursements, excluding goods and service tax, and after deductions, ordered TIH to pay TIL the net sum of $790,500. The court declined to award any pre-judgment interest.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court rules on costs and pre-judgment interest in a dispute between Transpac Investments Ltd and TIH Ltd regarding the release of a bond amount.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Transpac Investments LimitedClaimantCorporationPartial WinPartial
TIH LimitedDefendantCorporationPartial LossPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sir Henry Bernard EderInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Foo Maw ShenFC Legal Asia LLC
Chu Hua YiFC Legal Asia LLC
Foo Jyh HoweFC Legal Asia LLC
Noel Chua Yi HowPK Wong & Nair LLC
Nair Suresh SukumaranPK Wong & Nair LLC
Alex Chia Yao WeiPK Wong & Nair LLC
Joshua Goh ZeminPK Wong & Nair LLC

4. Facts

  1. TIL claimed costs and pre-judgment interest following a judgment in its favor.
  2. The suit was transferred to the SICC.
  3. TIL sought pre-transfer costs of $50,000 and post-transfer costs of $1 million.
  4. TIL claimed disbursements of $162,976.64, including expert fees.
  5. TIH argued TIL's costs were excessive and unreasonable.
  6. TIL sought pre-judgment interest from December 29, 2015.
  7. TIH argued TIL was not wrongfully kept out of its money.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH Ltd, Originating Application No 8 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(I) 30
  2. Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH Ltd, , [2024] SGHC(I) 23

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mediation Commenced
Suit transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court
Case Management Plan dated
Agreed Trial Checklist filed
Security for Costs furnished
Completion of the trial
Judgment in SIC/OA 8/2023 issued
TIH withdrew SUM 37
Account Closure Event occurred
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs
    • Outcome: The court determined the amount of costs payable by TIH to TIL, considering pre-transfer and post-transfer costs, as well as disbursements.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2023] 4 SLR 77
      • [2022] 1 SLR 88
      • [2023] 1 SLR 96
      • [2024] 5 SLR 1
      • [2024] SGHC(I) 8
      • [2019] 1 SLR 1
      • [2024] SGHC(I) 26
  2. Pre-Judgment Interest
    • Outcome: The court declined to award pre-judgment interest to TIL.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1308

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Costs
  2. Pre-judgment interest

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic and another matterSingapore High CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 77SingaporeCited with approval for the principle that Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 continues to be a guide for the assessment of pre-transfer costs.
CBX and another v CBZ and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 88SingaporeCited with approval for the principle that Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 continues to be a guide for the assessment of pre-transfer costs.
Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2023] 1 SLR 96SingaporeCited for the principle that a successful party is entitled to costs and the quantum of the costs award will generally reflect the costs incurred by the party entitled to costs, subject to principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and anotherSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2024] 5 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that it is open to the court to adopt a higher costs range within Appendix G where the pre-transfer work done involves a higher level of complexity and to apply an uplift on the appropriate Appendix G costs.
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2024] SGHC(I) 8SingaporeCited for the principle that it is appropriate for the court to order costs claimed by the successful party if the unsuccessful party’s estimate of costs is similar or identical.
Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investments Ltd and another appealSingapore High CourtYes[2019] 1 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that it is appropriate for the court to order costs claimed by the successful party if the unsuccessful party’s estimate of costs is similar or identical.
Pertamina International Marketing & Distribution Pte Ltd v P-H-O-E-N-I-X Petroleum Philippines, Inc (also known as Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc) and another matterSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2024] SGHC(I) 26SingaporeCited for the principle that it is not unusual for the claimant's costs to be somewhat higher than the defendant's costs, given that the claimant has the general carriage of the proceedings.
Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India and anotherSingapore High CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1308SingaporeCited for the principle that the court retains the discretion whether to award interest at all, what the interest rate should be, what proportion of the sum should bear interest and the period for which interest should be awarded.
Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH LtdSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2024] SGHC(I) 12SingaporeCited to note that TIL must pay TIH’s costs of the application for further security for costs in SIC/SUM 14/2024.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 22 r 3(1) of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-transfer costs
  • Post-transfer costs
  • Disbursements
  • Pre-judgment interest
  • Account Closure Event
  • Bond Amount
  • SICC Rules 2021
  • Appendix G
  • Proportionality
  • Reasonableness

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • pre-judgment interest
  • Singapore International Commercial Court
  • bond amount
  • disbursements

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Pre-judgment interest90
Litigation80
Civil Practice75
Commercial Disputes60
Contractual terms50
Damages Assessment40
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Interest