In a landmark development under the new Rules of Court 2021, Withers KhattarWong LLP, the Singapore office of the global law firm Withersworldwide, successfully obtained a stay of an appeal pending the other party’s payment of costs. The case, cited as [2024] SGHC(A) 33, marks the first reported instance of such an order being granted under the updated procedural rules.
The Withers team was led by Singapore-based dispute resolution partner Sharon Lin, with support from associate Johnson Lim. They represented Huttons, one of Singapore’s largest property agencies, in defending a misrepresentation claim brought by a property purchaser. Following a trial, the team secured a victory for Huttons in the General Division of the High Court, along with a costs order against the purchaser. However, the purchaser failed to pay these costs and proceeded to appeal the trial court’s decision to the Appellate Division of the High Court. In response, Sharon and Johnson successfully filed for a stay of the appeal until the purchaser fulfilled the outstanding costs payment.
This case is significant for its interpretation of Order 21, rule 2(6) of the new Rules of Court 2021, which introduces an express provision for stays of appeals pending payment of costs. The court clarified that under the new rules, a stay no longer requires “special or exceptional circumstances” but is subject to the court’s discretion based on the facts of each case.
In granting the stay, the court agreed with Sharon and Johnson’s arguments that the purchaser was attempting to evade the payment of costs, creating a real possibility that enforcement would need to occur overseas. The team highlighted several concerning factors:
- The purchaser’s solicitors refused to accept service for an order for the examination of the judgment debtor and failed to explain their lack of instructions.
- The purchaser omitted his residential address in his affidavit, instead listing his solicitor’s office address in violation of the Rules of Court 2021.
- Despite being a director of a Singapore company, the purchaser failed to update his residential address on the ACRA companies registry, contrary to the requirements under the Companies Act.
- A property search revealed that the residential address listed in the purchaser’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief was not owned by him.
The case represents an important milestone in Singapore’s legal landscape, offering clearer guidance on the courts’ discretion under the updated procedural framework.
Sharon Lin commented: “This decision is a step forward in clarifying the application of the new Rules of Court 2021. It underscores the court’s willingness to ensure fair outcomes for respondents seeking to recover costs awarded in legal proceedings. We are proud to have supported Huttons in achieving this significant outcome.”
