Marketlend Pty Ltd and another vs QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd

12 Mar 2025Court Report

Singapore Court rules on costs in a significant trade credit insurance dispute

Introduction

The Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) recently handed down a judgment concerning the allocation of costs in the case of Marketlend Pty Ltd and another vs QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd. The decision followed a trial where the court dismissed the claimants' claims, with the focus now shifting to the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful defendant.

Background

The case was initially filed in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore before being transferred to the SICC. The defendant, QBE Insurance, sought to recover costs amounting to S$2,616,897.26, which included pre-transfer and post-transfer costs, as well as costs for preparing submissions.

Pre-Transfer Costs

The court considered the applicable principles for pre-transfer costs, which are guided by the Rules of Court 2021. The defendant argued for an uplift from the standard guidelines due to the complexity and novelty of the case, which involved trade credit insurance claims and required significant legal expertise.

The claimants contended that the defendant's claimed costs were disproportionate, arguing that the case did not warrant a departure from standard cost guidelines. Ultimately, the court awarded the defendant S$100,000 plus GST for pre-transfer costs, acknowledging the case's complexity and the defendant's efforts in defending the claims.

Post-Transfer Costs

For post-transfer costs, the SICC applied a more subjective approach, considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs incurred. The defendant sought full recovery of its legal fees and disbursements, highlighting the extensive work involved in non-party disclosure applications and the admission of evidence from non-parties.

The claimants argued that the defendant's costs were excessive and that certain costs were not reasonably incurred. The court agreed to some extent, reducing the claimed costs and awarding S$1,366,831.90, considering factors such as unnecessary expert evidence and inefficiencies in the defendant's case management.

Conclusion

The court's decision to award a total of S$1,476,831.90 plus GST to the defendant reflects a careful consideration of the complexities involved in the case and the principles of proportionality and reasonableness. This judgment sets a precedent for future trade credit insurance disputes, particularly in assessing costs in the SICC.