JUDGMENT

(Application To Tax The Costs Awarded Earlier)

Kenneth St James JC:

Prelusion

[1] In November 2021, the Plaintiff (P) sued the Defendant (D) for its alleged breach of fiduciary as the City Council. P asserted that D failed and neglected to clear up the woods around P's house and its surrounding area.

[2] At a Case Management (CM) in February 2023 (a year-and-a-half later), P wanted to withdraw his suit.

[3] On 16 February 2023, P asked to withdraw his suit. I then struck out P's suit and ordered P to pay D fixed costs of RM15K.

[4] About a month later, on 7 March 2023, P filed encl 27. Encl 27 is worded in these terms-it prays for an Order for this Court to tax the costs ordered on 16 February 2023 when P withdrew this suit, according to the scale of costs.

How Was The Order Dated 16 February 2023 Made?

[5] On 16 February 2023, this suit was fixed for CM for parties to comply with Pre-Trial Directions. Parties had complied with almost all the Pre-Trial Directions that I gave them.

[6] Generally, the work that was done by the parties (particularly by D's solicitors) up to that date, included-

(1) preparing and settling the Pleadings;

(2) meeting with witnesses;

(3) preparing the respective Pre-Trial Documents such as-the Chronology Of Facts, the Summary Of Case, and the List Of Witnesses;

(4) working on the joint Pre-Trial Documents such as the proposed Agreed Facts and the proposed Agreed Issues To Be Tried (in fact, an Agreed ITBT was already filed);

(5) attending to (it was submitted) the seven CM dates before the Senior Assistant Registrar, and attending to the CM before me on 16 February 2023.

[7] As stated above, on that 16 February 2023 CM, P informed me that he wished to withdraw his suit. D asked for costs of RM15K for the work done up until that juncture. P offered to pay RM2K costs.

[8] I asked for arguments on costs. Parties submitted.

[9] P offered to pay D the relatively low sum of RM2K costs, arguing that his suit was a public interest suit. It was as a result of this suit that D took measures to clear up the woods around his house. In other words, D would not have cleared the woods if not for the pressure put on D from this suit. As such, a small sum of costs would have been appropriate.

[10] D refuted P's assertion. D argued that there was no evidence that demonstrated that it was P's suit that moved D to clear the woods. D asserted that it had always complied with its duties as the City Council.

[11] D also asserted that the only factor that was relevant to the quantum of costs to be awarded was the work that D had done up to that stage of the suit.

[12] After considering the submissions and the amount of work done up to that stage of this suit, I ordered P to pay D costs of RM15K, which I found as a reasonable and appropriate amount. And I gave my reasons for ordering so.

My Decision On encl 27

[13] On 1 February 2024, P's encl 27 came up for hearing. I heard the parties and dismissed it. My reasons are these.

[14] First, if P was not satisfied with the Order for costs, P should have applied for leave to appeal against the 16 February 2023 Order for costs-Ng King Chong v. Ooi Kim Geik & Ors, .

[15] In Ng King Chong (supra), Justice Harmindar Singh, delivering the Judgment of the Court Of Appeal, propounded (at paragraph [35]) that-

[35] The principles gained from the case authorities can therefore be expressed as follows. As a general rule, an aggrieved party who is dissatisfied with a final order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction must appeal to a higher Court...

[16] But P did not do this. Instead, P applied for the costs that were ordered, to be taxed. Such an application was not proper.

[17] Second, P filed this application under O 1A and O 92 r 4 of the Rules of 2012 (ROC 2012). O 1A provides as follows-

O 1A. Court or judge shall have regard to justice

Regard shall be to justice (O 1A)

In administering these Rules, the Court or a Judge shall have regard to the overriding interest of justice and not only to the technical no