Reliance Infrastructure v Shanghai Electric: SICC Rules on Costs Assessment
In Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the issue of costs following the dismissal of Reliance Infrastructure's application to set aside an arbitral award in favor of Shanghai Electric. The court, comprising Philip Jeyaretnam J, Sir Vivian Ramsey IJ, and Anselmo Reyes IJ, awarded costs to Shanghai Electric in the amount of US$734,660.02, finding the claimed costs generally reasonable and proportionate, but moderating the fees claimed for Singapore counsel.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Costs are awarded to Shanghai Electric in the amount of US$734,660.02
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Singapore International Commercial Court assessed costs after dismissing an application to set aside an arbitral award, awarding US$734,660.02.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance Infrastructure Limited | Claimant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Nicholas Emmet Graham Leslie of Fountain Court Chambers |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
| Sir Vivian Ramsey | International Judge | No |
| Anselmo Reyes | International Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Reliance Infrastructure applied to set aside an arbitral award in favor of Shanghai Electric.
- The arbitral award ordered Reliance Infrastructure to pay over US$146 million to Shanghai Electric.
- Reliance Infrastructure alleged forgery of the Guarantee Letter and lack of authority.
- The court dismissed Reliance Infrastructure's application after a 2-day hearing.
- The court awarded costs to Shanghai Electric, to be determined if parties could not agree.
- Shanghai Electric sought reimbursement of US$911,244.87 in costs.
- Reliance Infrastructure argued Shanghai Electric should be awarded no more than S$225,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd, Originating Application No 1 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(I) 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Reliance Infrastructure applied to set aside an arbitral award | |
| Arbitral award rendered by a tribunal | |
| Purported guarantee letter executed between the parties | |
| OA 1 dismissed | |
| Hearing began | |
| Hearing concluded | |
| Reliance Infrastructure sought extension of time | |
| Extensions of time allowed | |
| Parties filed written submissions on costs | |
| SFC Application filed | |
| Shanghai Electric’s Written Submissions in SFC Application |
7. Legal Issues
- Assessment of Costs
- Outcome: The court found the claimed costs generally reasonable and proportionate, but moderated the fees claimed for Singapore counsel.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonableness of costs
- Proportionality of costs
- Disparity between costs estimates
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- International Commercial Law
11. Industries
- Infrastructure
- Energy
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance Infrastructure Ltd v Shanghai Electric Group Co Ltd | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(I) 3 | Singapore | Dismissed the application brought by the claimant to set aside an arbitral award. |
| Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investments Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the Court of Appeal granted the costs claimed by Qilin and assessed them to be reasonable, in light of CPIT’s similar estimate in its own costs schedule. |
| Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | The principles articulated by the Court of Appeal in that case remain applicable to the assessment of costs in the Singapore International Commercial Court under the new O 22 of the SICC Rules 2021. |
| DBX and another v DBZ | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(I) 5 | Singapore | Prior SICC costs awards in cases with “common features” with the present case should be taken into consideration in assessing the ‘reasonableness’ of costs at the objective stage. |
| Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 158 | Singapore | Prior SICC costs awards in cases with “common features” with the present case should be taken into consideration in assessing the ‘reasonableness’ of costs at the objective stage. |
| DBX and another v DBZ | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2024] 3 SLR 141 | Singapore | The arbitral awards there had awarded less than HKD80 million (not including interest and costs). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 22 r 3(1) of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Costs assessment
- Reasonableness
- Proportionality
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- Arbitral award
- Setting-aside application
- Guarantee letter
- Forgery
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- SICC
- Arbitration
- Singapore
- Reliance Infrastructure
- Shanghai Electric
- Assessment
- Rules
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Reasonableness and Proportionality | 85 |
| Assessment of Costs | 80 |
| Singapore International Commercial Court Rules | 75 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Arbitration