These are my write-ups of another two cases from Singapore, which first appeared on the Asia Pacific Institute of Experts LinkedIn page:
Expert’s fees re-instated on appeal
Background
A fortnight after rejecting a settlement offer of SGD330,000, the Plaintiffs in a legal action terminated the engagement of their lawyers – and then agreed to settle their claim for the amount rejected a fortnight earlier.
Shortly afterwards the lawyers commenced proceedings, asking the Singapore High Court to declare that the relevant engagement letters for appointment were “contentious business agreements” (“CBAs”) – which would compel the Plaintiffs to pay their fees without any assessment of costs.
The fees claimed were SGD399,000, with additional disbursements including expert fees of £12,300 for an expert based in the UK.
The letters of engagement notably included an indicative fee estimate inclusive of a two-day trial of SGD150,000 which stated “If the matter is settled before trial, as happens in many litigious matters, our professional fees will be correspondingly lower.”
Original Decision
At first instance the Court held that the engagement letters were not CBAs. It held that a reasonable lawyer would have charged about SGD60,000 up to the trial, and correspondingly, that the claimed fees were excessive.
The Court held the expert’s fee was also excessive given that she did not have to attend Court, and determined that the clients should only pay SGD9,000 – a little less than half of her invoice.
On appeal
In Arbiters Inc Law Corp v Arokiasamy Steven Joseph & Anor [2024] SGHC(A) 37 the Court held that:
- The engagement letters were CBAs, but that the terms of those letters were so unreasonable that they should be declared void and unenforceable.
- The claimed legal fees “were plainly excessive” – but it did agree to an uplift of SGD27,000.
- Noting that the clients had already said that they would pay the expert’s fees in full, it should be “slow to substitute its view for what [the clients] had unequivocally stated they were agreeable to,” and also rejected the view that her fee was “unreasonable” for an expert report of 57 pages.
Further consequences
The Court referral of the solicitor to the Law Society of Singapore “to inquire whether [the solicitor] had acted in the interest of [his clients]…and whether [the solicitor] had attempted to mislead the court,” and it ruled that costs should not follow the event having regard to the law firm’s limited success and the solicitor’s “highly unsatisfactory conduct.”
Comment – For experts, this case highlights the importance of contractual arrangements which ensure that their fees are payable regardless of the outcome of any cost assessment, although it is worth noting that many experts would require payment in advance before undertaking an engagement outside their home jurisdiction.
Banking Expert Witness.com.au 
“The perils of the sea”
Background
A lender claimed against marine insurers for the loss of a ship, which capsized and sank on its maiden voyage.
The Court described the Insurers adopting “an evolving kitchen sink approach, raising a wide range of defences, dropping some and then raising new ones.”
The defences included a claimed absence of proof that the vessel was a total loss, or that the loans had been disbursed; that the loss was not caused by a “peril of the sea;” that there was a breach of the duty of “fair presentation” and warranties; and that part of the marine insurance was void as a gaming or wagering contract.
Expert evidence
To escape the ambit of “perils of the sea” the Insurers had to show that loss was due to “uneventful decrepitude,” or other characteristics of the ship that were unrelated to any external accident.
As a consequence, expert evidence regarding the capsize was crucial, as was photographic evidence taken from the nearby tugboat.
The lender’s naval architecture expert concluded that the only possible explanation for the observed “list” (i.e., the ship becoming lopsided) was a loss of buoyancy due to water ingress – but was unable to pinpoint the precise cause of that ingress.
In his oral evidence the Insurers’ naval architecture expert advanced a theory that “deck edge immersion” contributed to, or caused the capsize. Notably, this theory was not put in either of his two sole expert reports, or in the joint expert report.
The Insurers also tabled expert evidence from a Master Mariner who testified that the ship was inherently unstable on departure because it tilted excessively (“heeled”) in high wind.
Assessment of the expert evidence
In Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd & Ors [2025] SGHC 82 the Court followed the “well established” rules in choosing between conflicting expert testimony, having regard “to their logic, common sense, coherence, as well as the objective evidence before the court.”
The Lender’s naval architecture expert evidence was supported by calculations and models, which “survived” the scrutiny and examination of the Insurers’ naval architecture expert. However, there were several unexplained inconsistencies in the “much less credible” theory of the Insurers’ naval architecture expert, and neither he nor the Master Mariner had performed calculations to support their own theories or to refute the key calculations of the Lenders’ expert.
The Court also preferred the objectivity of the Lender’s expert, noting her admission that she could not firmly hypothesise why the ship had capsized so suddenly.
By contrast, the Master Mariner avoided providing direct answers to some questions coming across “as a factual witness seeking to bolster the Defendants’ case rather than as an independent court expert.”
Outcome
The lender was successful