Abstract:
This case comment examines the Singapore Court of Appeal’s reservations in Lun Yaodong Clarence v Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP [2025] 1 SLR 849 regarding the arbitrability of solicitor-and‑client costs assessment disputes, particularly in light of the court’s long-standing supervisory jurisdiction over such disputes. Nevertheless, this case comment respectfully argues that such disputes are arbitrable. Firstly, solicitor-and‑client costs assessment disputes are fundamentally inter partes in nature. Secondly, the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over costs assessment, while inherent, is limited. Finally, recognising the arbitrability of such disputes is also consistent with Singapore’s long-standing pro‑arbitration policy.