Chong Jorina v Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios LTDA & Anor
Outcome
Claim dismissed“I dismissed the claim in negligence for other reasons.”
Source: [2026] SGHC 148, High Court (General Division), decided 14 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 13–19 July 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Vinodh Coomaraswamy |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Outcome | Claim dismissed |
| Counsel | RCLT Law Corporation, WongPartnership LLP, Byrna Tan, Choo Zheng Xi, Donaven Foo, Gavin Neo, Melanie Ho, Stella Ng |
Source: [2026] SGHC 148, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
Chong Jorina v Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios Ltda & Anor [2026] SGHC 148 is a General Division of the High Court costs decision of Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, dated 14 July 2026, in Originating Claim No 727 of 2023. The claimant had advanced loans totalling over $1.6m to the first defendant and sued the second defendant in fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation; those claims were dismissed on 2 June 2026. The issues were whether the defendant's costs claim was in substance on the indemnity basis, what pre-trial and trial costs were reasonable under the Costs Guidelines in Appendix G, and whether the award should be reduced for settlement overtures or the defendant's conduct. The court fixed costs on the standard basis at $215,000 and ordered the claimant to pay a total of $244,165.50.
[2026] SGHC 148 explained
Chong Jorina v Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios LTDA & Anor ([2026] SGHC 148) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 14 July 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 148 about?
Chong Jorina v Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios LTDA & Anor ([2026] SGHC 148) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure - Costs - Bases of assessment - Distinction between standard basis and indemnity basis” and “Civil Procedure - Costs - Party-and-party costs - Quantum - Fixing costs with the assistance of Appendix G”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 148 consider?
The judgment refers to Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 148 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 120, [2024] SGHC 178, and [2023] SGHC 68. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court fixed the costs of an action in which the claimant's misrepresentation and negligence claims against the second defendant had been dismissed. Applying Appendix G to the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 with a limited departure for pre-trial costs, the court rejected the claimant's argument that the claim was in substance for indemnity costs and declined to reduce the award for settlement overtures or the defendant's conduct. It ordered the claimant to pay $244,165.50, comprising $215,000 in costs, $20,494.90 in disbursements and $8,670.60 for two interlocutory applications.
How much costs did the court order in Chong Jorina v Ritz Property Investimentos Imobiliarios Ltda [2026] SGHC 148?
The court ordered the claimant to pay the second defendant $244,165.50 in total: $215,000 for the costs of the action on the standard basis, $20,494.90 in agreed disbursements and $8,670.60 for two interlocutory applications.
Did the court reduce the successful defendant's costs in [2026] SGHC 148?
No. The court held that the defendant's evasive evidence as a witness did not engage O 21 r 4(b) of the Rules and that her alleged non-compliance with disclosure orders did not unreasonably increase her costs, so no part of her costs was deprived.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (10)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 148)