Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91

Case Details

• Citation: [2025] SGHC 91
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 20 May 2025
• Coram: Choo Han Teck J
• Case Number: Originating Claim No 235 of 2023; HC/SUM 209/2024
• Hearing Date(s): 17 April, 2 May 2025
• Claimant: Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa
• Defendants: Khoo Chong Kiat; Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd
• Counsel for Claimant: Cumara Kamalacumar, Celestine Luke Tolentino and Daniel Soo (Selvam LLC)
• Counsel for Defendants: Kuah Boon Theng SC, Kee Shu’en Theodora and Kimberly Chia Wei Xin (Legal Clinic LLC)
• Practice Areas: Civil Procedure; Costs; Quantum

Summary

The judgment in Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91 represents a significant clarification of the Singapore High Court's approach to costs under the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021). The dispute arose following a medical procedure performed by the defendants, which resulted in the claimant developing a fistula. While the substantive merits of the claim were resolved, the parties remained fundamentally deadlocked on the issue of costs, necessitating a judicial determination of the appropriate quantum. This case is particularly noteworthy for its analysis of how the removal of the formal "Offer to Settle" regime under Order 22A of the Rules of Court 2014 has altered the landscape of cost consequences for failed negotiations.

Justice Choo Han Teck was tasked with navigating a scenario where both parties had made multiple, albeit vastly different, attempts to settle the matter before trial. The claimant had sought sums as high as $1m, eventually scaling down to $350,000, while the defendants had offered amounts ranging from a goodwill refund of fees to $60,000. The court's primary doctrinal contribution here lies in its refusal to treat the absence of Order 22A as a signal that settlement offers are now irrelevant. Instead, the court affirmed that the "reasonableness" of an offer remains a central pillar of the court's discretion in awarding costs, though this reasonableness must be measured against the objective merits of the claim rather than the mere fact of an offer being made.

The court ultimately distinguished the claimant’s conduct from more egregious examples of litigation unreasonableness, such as those seen in [2023] SGHC 56. By applying the guidelines set out in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, the court adopted a "mid-range" approach, balancing the defendants' entitlement to costs as the successful parties against the fact that the claim was neither complex nor complicated. The resulting award of $233,107.59 serves as a benchmark for practitioners on how the court will exercise its discretion when parties have engaged in protracted but ultimately unsuccessful settlement discussions.

Beyond the immediate financial outcome, the decision underscores the necessity for practitioners to provide clear, final offers in settlement negotiations. The court observed that when negotiations are protracted, the lack of clarity regarding whether an offer is "final" can complicate the court's assessment of party conduct. This judgment reinforces the principle that while the ROC 2021 aims for efficiency and amicable resolution, the court will not mechanically penalize parties for failing to settle if their offers were based on a bona fide, albeit differing, assessment of the case's value.

Timeline of Events

1. 9 May 2020: The first defendant, Khoo Chong Kiat, first offered a refund of his delivery fees as a gesture of goodwill. This occurred three days after the claimant developed a fistula following the medical procedure.
2. 3 September 2021: The first defendant made a subsequent offer to settle the claim.
3. Late 2021: The parties made arrangements to mediate the dispute.
4. February 2022: The defendants put the mediation "on hold" due to ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). No further progress on mediation was made following this suspension.
5. 27 November 2024: The claimant made a settlement offer to the defendants.
6. 4 December 2024: The claimant made another offer to the defendants, approximately two months before the trial was scheduled to commence.
7. 13 January 2025: The defendants counter-proposed a settlement figure to the claimant.
8. 20 January 2025: The claimant made a revised offer to the defendants.
9. 23 January 2025: The defendants rejected the claimant's revised offer.
10. Late January 2025: The trial commenced more than a week after the rejection of the claimant's revised offer.
11. 17 April, 2 May 2025: Substantive hearings were conducted regarding the quantum of costs.
12. 20 May 2025: The High Court delivered its judgment on the costs and disbursements.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The litigation originated from a medical procedure performed by the defendants, Dr. Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd, on the claimant, Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa. Following the procedure, the claimant suffered a significant medical complication—the development of a fistula. This complication became the catalyst for a protracted legal battle under Originating Claim No 235 of 2023. The core of the dispute, as presented in the statement of claim, involved allegations of negligence or breach of duty regarding the medical care provided.

The factual matrix of the costs dispute is defined by a series of settlement attempts that spanned nearly five years. The first defendant’s initial gesture of goodwill occurred on 9 May 2020, almost immediately after the fistula was discovered, where he offered to refund his delivery fees. This was followed by a more formal offer to settle on 3 September 2021. Despite these early attempts, the parties were unable to find common ground. A planned mediation in late 2021 was derailed in February 2022 when the defendants unilaterally placed the process on hold, citing the ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) into the matter. This suspension lasted until the eve of the trial, effectively preventing any alternative dispute resolution from taking place for over two years.

As the trial date approached in late 2024, the negotiation process resumed with increased frequency but no greater success. The claimant’s opening position was substantial, with an offer made on 27 November 2024. By 4 December 2024, another offer was on the table. The defendants eventually counter-proposed a figure on 13 January 2025. The claimant’s final attempt at settlement occurred on 20 January 2025, which was rejected by the defendants on 23 January 2025. The trial began shortly thereafter.

The disparity between the parties' valuations of the claim was vast. The claimant had at various points sought $1m, $600,000, and $350,000. Conversely, the defendants’ offers were significantly lower, including sums of $10,000, $60,000, $12,000, and $20,000. The defendants argued that the claimant’s refusal to accept their offers, particularly the $60,000 offer, was unreasonable and should result in an award of indemnity costs. They relied on the principle that the claimant had failed to achieve a better result at trial than what had been offered. The claimant, however, maintained that her offers were reasonable given her assessment of the damages and that the defendants' own conduct—specifically putting the mediation on hold—contributed to the failure to settle.

The procedural history also included an interlocutory application, HC/SUM 209/2024, which added to the litigation's complexity. By the time the matter reached the costs hearing on 17 April and 2 May 2025, the defendants were seeking costs in excess of $350,000, while the claimant argued for a much lower figure based on the guidelines in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The court was thus required to dissect these years of interactions to determine a fair and just allocation of costs in a post-Order 22A environment.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The primary legal issue was the determination of the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful defendants under the ROC 2021 framework. This involved several sub-issues that required the court to interpret the new rules in light of historical practices.

• The Impact of the Removal of Order 22A: The court had to decide how the deletion of the formal "Offer to Settle" regime from the Rules of Court 2014 affected the court's power to award indemnity costs or otherwise penalize a party for failing to accept a settlement offer. This required an analysis of the court's residual discretion under the ROC 2021.
• The Definition of "Reasonableness" in Settlement Offers: A central question was whether the reasonableness of an offer should be judged solely by the final trial outcome (the "result" test) or by a broader assessment of the merits of the claim and the parties' conduct at the time the offer was made.
• Application of Appendix G Guidelines: The court needed to determine where this specific case fell within the ranges provided in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. This involved assessing the complexity of the medical negligence claim and the amount of work reasonably required.
• Distinguishing Precedent on Unreasonable Conduct: The court had to evaluate whether the claimant’s conduct mirrored the "unreasonable" behavior identified in [2023] SGHC 56, which would justify a departure from standard cost scales.
• Assessment of Disbursements: The court was required to scrutinize the defendants' claimed disbursements, including expert fees and other litigation expenses, to ensure they were "reasonably incurred" and "proportionate" to the dispute.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

Justice Choo Han Teck began the analysis by addressing the structural changes in the Singapore Rules of Court. He noted that while the specific mechanisms of Order 22A of the Rules of Court 2014—which provided for indemnity costs where a party refused an offer and subsequently failed to obtain a better judgment—had been removed, the underlying principle of encouraging settlement remained intact. The court emphasized that the removal of Order 22A does not render offers to settle "inconsequential." Instead, the effect of such offers on a cost order is now a matter of judicial discretion, to be exercised based on the specific facts of each case.

The court then tackled the defendants' argument that the claimant had been unreasonable in rejecting their offers. The defendants pointed to the fact that the claimant had sought $1m and $600,000, which they characterized as "exorbitant." However, the court observed at [3] that "the amount offered is not the same as the reasonableness of that offer." Justice Choo reasoned that the reasonableness of an offer is inextricably linked to the merits of the claim. In this case, the parties simply had fundamentally different views on the value of the claim. The court found that the parties' respective ideas of a reasonable settlement sum were "too far apart," and this disagreement did not necessarily equate to unreasonableness on the part of the claimant.

A critical part of the court's reasoning involved distinguishing the present case from [2023] SGHC 56 (Chia Soo Kiang). In Chia Soo Kiang, the claimant had been found unreasonable because they had refused the defendants' offer, made no counter-offer, filed affidavits without leave, and made major amendments to the claim just a week before trial. In contrast, Justice Choo noted that the claimant in the present case had made multiple offers and had shown a willingness to mediate. The court specifically noted that it was the defendants who had put the mediation on hold in February 2022. As the court stated at [5]:

"Chia Soo Kiang can be distinguished from the present case. In that case, the claimant refused the defendants’ offer to settle and made no counter-offer. He also filed affidavits without leave and made major amendments to his claim a week before the trial commenced. In the present case, the claimant made offers to the defendants to settle the matter."

Regarding the complexity of the case, the court was blunt. At [5], Justice Choo stated, "The claim was neither complicated nor complex." This finding was pivotal in determining the quantum of costs. The court rejected the defendants' attempt to claim costs at the higher end of the scale or on an indemnity basis. Instead, the court looked to Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. Justice Choo determined that the costs should fall within the "mid-range" of the guidelines. This was a deliberate choice to reflect a balanced view of the litigation—acknowledging the defendants' success while recognizing the claimant's legitimate attempts to resolve the matter and the lack of extraordinary complexity in the legal issues involved.

The court then proceeded to a granular assessment of the costs and disbursements. The defendants had claimed trial costs of $152,600 and pre-trial costs of $8,720, totaling $161,320. The court accepted these figures as being within the mid-range of the Appendix G guidelines. The analysis of disbursements was more detailed. The defendants claimed a total of $71,787.59 in disbursements. This included several significant items:

• $16,742.59 for various administrative and smaller expenses;
• $44,145 for expert fees;
• $21,539.49 for additional expert-related costs;
• $10,900 for other litigation-related disbursements.

The court scrutinized these figures and found them to be reasonable and justified in the context of a medical negligence claim where expert testimony is essential. The court noted that the total amount of disbursements, while significant, was proportionate to the nature of the dispute and the work required to defend the claim successfully.

Finally, the court addressed the conduct of the negotiations themselves. Justice Choo observed that in cases where negotiations are protracted, it is incumbent upon parties to make their final offers clear. The court suggested that the ambiguity in the "finality" of the offers made in late 2024 and early 2025 contributed to the parties' inability to settle. However, this lack of clarity was not attributed solely to the claimant. Consequently, the court found no basis to award the higher costs sought by the defendants ($350,000) and instead fixed the costs at the calculated mid-range total.

What Was the Outcome?

The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendants a total sum of $233,107.59. This figure was the result of a specific breakdown of costs and disbursements as determined by the court's application of the Appendix G guidelines and its assessment of the parties' conduct.

The breakdown of the award is as follows:

• Trial Costs: $152,600.00
• Pre-Trial Costs: $8,720.00
• Total Costs: $161,320.00
• Disbursements: $71,787.59
• Grand Total: $233,107.59

The operative order of the court was stated at paragraph [8]:

"I thus order that the claimant pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59 (including disbursements)."

The court's decision effectively rejected the defendants' pursuit of higher costs (which had been estimated at over $350,000) and their arguments for indemnity-level recovery. By fixing the costs at $233,107.59, the court signaled that while the defendants were the successful parties and entitled to their costs, the claimant's behavior did not warrant the punitive measures reserved for truly unreasonable litigants. The award of disbursements in full ($71,787.59) reflected the court's view that the expert fees and administrative costs incurred by the defendants were necessary for the defense of the claim. No interest was specifically mentioned in the operative paragraph, and the costs were fixed rather than being sent for taxation, providing immediate finality to the litigation.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is a vital authority for Singapore practitioners navigating the costs regime of the ROC 2021. Its significance can be categorized into three main areas: the doctrinal shift in settlement consequences, the practical application of cost guidelines, and the judicial expectations for party conduct.

First, the judgment clarifies the "post-Order 22A" landscape. For years, Order 22A provided a rigid, almost mechanical trigger for indemnity costs. Its removal led to some uncertainty as to whether settlement offers still carried "teeth." Justice Choo’s analysis confirms that they do, but through the lens of judicial discretion rather than a mandatory rule. The court has moved from a "result-based" penalty (where failing to beat an offer led to indemnity costs) to a "reasonableness-based" assessment. This means that a party who rejects an offer and gets a worse result at trial is not automatically penalized if their rejection was based on a reasonable, albeit mistaken, assessment of the merits. This provides a more nuanced and perhaps fairer approach, but it also places a higher burden on practitioners to justify their settlement positions.

Second, the case provides a clear example of how the court utilizes Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. By categorizing a medical negligence claim as "neither complicated nor complex" and opting for the "mid-range" of the cost scale, the court has set a baseline for similar disputes. It warns defendants against over-claiming costs in matters that, while factually dense (as medical cases often are), do not present extraordinary legal difficulty. The court’s willingness to fix costs at $233,107.59—significantly lower than the $350,000 sought by the defendants—demonstrates a commitment to the ROC 2021’s pillar of proportionality.

Third, the judgment offers practical guidance on the conduct of negotiations. The court’s observation that parties should make their "final offer clear" is a direct instruction to the bar. In the heat of litigation, offers often fly back and forth with varying degrees of formality. Justice Choo’s emphasis on clarity suggests that the court will look more favorably on a party who draws a clear line in the sand, allowing the other side to make a fully informed decision about the risks of proceeding to trial. Furthermore, the court’s criticism of the defendants for putting mediation "on hold" serves as a reminder that the court expects parties to pursue ADR in good faith, and that stalling such processes can negate later arguments about the other side's "unreasonableness."

In the broader Singapore legal landscape, this case reinforces the judiciary's role as an active manager of litigation costs. It moves away from the "winner takes all" mentality of indemnity costs and toward a more calibrated system where the award reflects the actual complexity of the work and the bona fides of the parties' attempts to settle. For practitioners, the takeaway is clear: document your settlement offers carefully, justify your valuations with reference to the merits, and never assume that the removal of Order 22A has made the rejection of a settlement offer a "free" choice.

Practice Pointers

• Clarity in Final Offers: When negotiations are protracted, practitioners should explicitly label their final offer as such. This clarity assists the court in determining the point at which a party's refusal to settle may become "unreasonable."
• Avoid Stalling ADR: Putting mediation or other ADR processes "on hold" (e.g., pending an SMC investigation) can be viewed unfavorably by the court. If a party stalls ADR, they may lose the ability to later argue that the opposing party was unreasonable for not settling.
• Appendix G as a Realistic Benchmark: Use Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 as a primary guide for cost expectations. The court is likely to favor the "mid-range" for standard claims that lack exceptional complexity.
• Reasonableness vs. Result: Advise clients that "reasonableness" is not just about the final dollar amount at trial. The court will look at whether the offer was reasonable at the time it was made, based on the then-available evidence and merits.
• Documenting Settlement Rationale: Maintain a clear record of why specific settlement offers were made or rejected. This documentation will be crucial if the court is required to exercise its discretion on costs under the ROC 2021.
• Proportionality in Disbursements: Ensure that disbursements, especially expert fees, are proportionate to the claim's value. While the court in this case allowed $71,787.59, it did so after a scrutiny of their necessity for the defense.
• Impact of SMC Investigations: Be cautious about using regulatory investigations as a reason to delay civil proceedings or settlement talks. The court may view the civil track as independent of the regulatory track for the purposes of cost assessments.

Subsequent Treatment

As a relatively recent decision from May 2025, the subsequent treatment of Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat in later judgments will likely focus on its application of the "reasonableness" test in the absence of Order 22A. The ratio—that costs should be fixed based on judicial discretion considering efforts at amicable resolution and distinguished from cases of extreme unreasonableness—establishes a moderate path for cost awards under the ROC 2021. It is expected to be cited in future costs hearings where parties are debating the "mid-range" application of Appendix G.

Legislation Referenced

• Rules of Court 2021: The primary procedural framework governing the court's discretion and the "pillars" of civil justice.
• Rules of Court 2014: Referenced specifically regarding the now-deleted Order 22A (Offers to Settle) and Order 21 Rule 2.
• Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (Appendix G): The guidelines used by the court to determine the quantum of costs for the trial and pre-trial stages.

Cases Cited

• [2023] SGHC 56 (Chia Soo Kiang (personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan, deceased) v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and others) — Distinguished by the court on the basis of the claimant's conduct.
• [2025] SGHC 91 (Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another) — The present judgment.

Source Documents

• Original Judgment (PDF)
• Case Entry on eLitigation