Very bad news it seems… Conclusion 66 For these reasons, we...

Very bad news it seems…

Conclusion
66 For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal. That said, we recognise that the appellants were successful, in the first and second tranches, in establishing that BR acted in breach of the coal supply obligations they owed under the JV Deed. Even though they were not able to prove that they suffered substantial damages as a consequence, that does not detract from their success in establishing BR’s liability for breach of contract. We therefore award the appellants S$1,000 in nominal damages.
67 As to the costs of the appeal, unless the parties are able to come to an agreement, we direct them to file written submissions, limited to ten pages each, setting out their positions on the appropriate costs orders we should make together with the supporting grounds. These are to be filed within three weeks of the date of this judgment. We note that the costs of the trial have been determined by the SICC: see BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and another v PT Bayan Resources TBK and another [2022] SGHC(I) 17 (the “Costs Judgment”. As we have affirmed the Judgment, and as there is a pending application before us by which the appellants seek permission to appeal the SICC’s Costs Judgment, we expressly make no order or observations in respect of trial costs. The usual consequential orders will apply.