SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Benedict Teo, Kelvin Tan, Kong Man Er and Shumin Lin, Drew & Napier LLC
to introduce a new point should state so in its appeal. An appellate court would not decide in favour of an appellant on a ground put forward for the first time on appeal unless it is satisfied beyond doubt that it has before it all the facts bearing upon the new contention and that no satisfactory explanation could have been offered by the persons whose conduct is impugned. New Evidence on Appeal Further evidence that does not relate to matters occur- ring after the date of decision may only be admitted on appeal (with permission of the court) if the party can show that: • the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; • the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive; and • the evidence is presumably to be believed. The court may also admit new evidence if it relates to matters that have occurred after the date of the deci- sion from which the appeal is brought. Such evidence must appear to be credible and be potentially material to the issues in the appeal. 10.5 Court-Imposed Conditions on Granting an Appeal Aside from matters such as obtaining permission of court and the requirement to provide security for costs, there are no general conditions imposed by the court on granting appeals. 10.6 Powers of the Appellate Court After an Appeal Hearing An appellate court has extensive powers when grant- ing orders after hearing an appeal, including: • giving any judgment; • making any order that ought to have been given or made; • making such further orders as the case may require; and • even ordering a new trial. These orders may be granted in favour of a party, not- withstanding that no notice of appeal has been given
in respect of any particular part of a decision, or by that particular party to the proceedings. The court’s powers are not restricted by any interlocutory orders that have not been appealed against. 11. Costs 11.1 Responsibility for Paying the Costs of Litigation Two sets of costs are relevant: party-and-party costs (payable between parties to litigation) and solicitor- and-client costs (payable by parties to their solici- tors). Costs are typically paid by the losing party to the prevailing party. The quantum of costs may be determined by parties’ agreement or by the court in assessment of costs proceedings. In costs assessment proceedings, party-and-party costs are typically assessed on the standard basis, which means that a reasonable amount in respect of all costs reasonably incurred would be granted, and any doubts as to whether the costs were reasonably incurred are resolved in favour of the paying party. Solicitor-and-client costs are typically assessed on the indemnity basis, which means that a reason- able amount in respect of all costs incurred would be granted, and any doubts are resolved in favour of the receiving party. Costs assessed on the indemnity basis are typically about one-third more than costs assessed on the standard basis. Where the receiving party is a litigant in person, the court may allow such costs as would reasonably com- pensate the litigant for the time expended by the liti- gant, together with all expenses reasonably incurred. 11.2 Factors Considered When Awarding Costs The court that heard a matter must fix the costs of the matter, unless the court thinks fit to direct an assess- ment of the costs. The court takes into account all the circumstances of the case, including a party’s conduct in the course of the proceedings, efforts made by the parties towards amicable resolution, the complexity of the matter and the difficulty of the questions involved.
1011 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook