Nallini Pathmanathan J:

[1]This decision relates to the issue of costs arising from the petition by the first petitioner ('TGB') and second petitioner ('TAS') to sanction schemes of arrangement between each of them as scheme companies and their respective creditors.

[2]The salient chronology of events leading up to this decision have been comprehensively set out in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners' as well as the respondents. I adopt and confirm the sequence of events leading up to the application for, and subsequent grant of sanction for the schemes, after a relatively protracted hearing over the course of several months.

[3]The matter originally commenced when the petitioners filed an application pursuant to s 176

[4]On 22 December 2010 the High Court held that the amounts owed by TAS to MTB enjoyed no such priority over the monies owed to the second to 13th respondents. The court further held that all respective debts therefore ranked pari passu for the purposes of the proposed scheme of arrangement between TAS and its scheme creditors. MTB did not succeed in its appeals.

[5]The issue of costs arises in respect of the petition for sanction which was filed on 29 April 2011 subsequent to both schemes of arrangement being approved by the required statutory majority. This court heard the parties on 29November 2011, 5 December 2011 and 11 February 2012. On 20 February 2012, sanction was granted for the petitioners' schemes of arrangement with the issue of costs to be determined at a subsequent date. Thus the issue of costs now arises for determination.

[6]The petitioners and the second to 13th respondents as well as the 14th respondent seek costs from MTB on an indemnity basis, maintaining that all objections raised in respect of the petitioners' application for sanction were artificial and contrived primarily to delay the grant of sanction. MTB on the other hand maintains that its presence and the issues raised were so done primarily for the assistance of this court. MTB further points out that the role of the court is supervisory in respect of the sanctioning of schemes of arrangement and that it actually assisted this court to make a proper and rigorous evaluation of the said schemes. As such it is contended that no order as to costs ought to be made and each party ought to bear its own costs.

THE LAW

[7]Under the Rules of Court 2012, the general principle that costs follow the event remains, (see O 59 r 3 of the Rules of Court 2012). Order 59 r 2 provides that subject to express provisions of written law and the Rules, the costs of and incidental to proceedings in the court shall be in the discretion of the court which shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.

[8]Order 59 r 3(2) stipulates that the court has in the exercise of its discretion in awarding costs shall generally order costs to follow the event except when it appears to the court that the circumstances of the case warrant the making of some other order in respect of the whole of, or a part of the costs. The court therefore has to exercise its discretion judicially in determining whether costs follow the event or whether there should be a departure from the general position.

[9]The court is entitled under O 59 r 8 to take into account 'special matters' as specified therein and one of which is the conduct of parties including before and during proceedings. This includes, as submitted by learned counsel for the second to 13th respondents, the manner in which a party has pursued his case or a particular issue, whether it was reasonable for a party to raise, pursue or contest a particular allegation or issue and whether the parties attempted to resolve the matter.

[10]The basis of assessment of costs is set out in O 59 r 16(1) which sets out the items that the court is to have regard to in assessing costs. Order 59 r 16(2) provides that the amount of costs which a party is entitled to recover is the amount allow