Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 91
- Title: Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Originating Claim No: Originating Claim No 235 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 20 May 2025
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Hearing Dates: 17 April 2025; 2 May 2025
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Khoo Chong Kiat; (2) Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure – Costs (quantum)
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2014 (O 22A); Rules of Court 2021 (O 21 r 2)
- Key Procedural Context: Costs assessment following trial; consideration of settlement offers and mediation efforts
- Reported/Published Version: Version No 1: 20 May 2025 (14:52 hrs)
- Judgment Length: 6 pages; 1,477 words
- Counsel: For the claimant: Cumara Kamalacumar, Celestine Luke Tolentino and Daniel Soo (Selvam LLC). For the defendants: Kuah Boon Theng SC, Kee Shu’en Theodora and Kimberly Chia Wei Xin (Legal Clinic LLC).
Summary
In Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91, the High Court addressed the quantum of costs after the conclusion of a medical-related civil action. While the substantive liability issues are not set out in the excerpt, the judgment is clearly focused on costs and, in particular, how the court should treat the parties’ pre-trial settlement conduct. The court considered the history of settlement offers, the parties’ efforts (including mediation), and the extent to which any refusal to settle should influence costs.
The court acknowledged that settlement offers can matter even though the specific indemnity costs regime in O 22A of the Rules of Court 2014 had been removed under the Rules of Court 2021. Nonetheless, the court emphasised that costs remain discretionary under O 21 r 2 of the ROC 2021, and that the court must have regard to relevant circumstances, including the efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution. Applying these principles, the judge declined to award the defendants the high costs figure they sought and instead fixed costs within the mid-range of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 guidelines.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute arose from events in the medical context involving the claimant, Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa, and the defendants, Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd. The excerpt records that the claimant developed a fistula, and that the first defendant made an initial settlement offer shortly thereafter. Specifically, on 9 May 2020—three days after the claimant developed the fistula—the first defendant offered a refund of delivery fees as a gesture of goodwill. This early offer was not accepted, and the parties continued to engage in discussions.
Settlement efforts continued over time but did not progress to resolution. The first defendant made another offer to settle on 3 September 2021. The claimant did not accept this offer. In end 2021, the parties arranged to mediate, but the mediation was later put “on hold” by the defendants in February 2022 due to ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council. The excerpt indicates that no meaningful progress occurred after the mediation was paused.
As the litigation approached trial, the parties exchanged further settlement proposals. On 4 December 2024, about two months before the trial commenced, the claimant made an offer to the defendants. The defendants counter-proposed a figure on 13 January 2025. One week later, the claimant made a revised offer. The defendants rejected the revised offer three days later, and the trial began more than a week after that rejection.
Against this background, the costs dispute arose. The defendants argued that the claimant’s conduct—such as alleged delays in providing information and documents (including medical records), belated raising of material matters, and refusal to mediate—caused wasted costs. The claimant, by contrast, maintained that the defendants declined to mediate, were slow in disclosure, and raised material matters belatedly. The defendants also contended that the claimant demanded “unreasonable sums” that were disproportionate to her alleged injuries. These competing narratives framed the court’s approach to costs.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was how the court should exercise its discretion on costs in light of settlement offers and mediation efforts. Although the excerpt does not describe the final judgment on liability, it is clear that the costs order followed a trial and that the court was required to determine the appropriate quantum and basis for costs. The judge had to decide whether the defendants’ settlement offers should lead to an enhanced costs outcome, and if so, to what extent.
A second issue concerned the effect of procedural rule changes. The defendants’ arguments invoked the concept of indemnity costs linked to settlement offers. The judge therefore addressed the legal significance of O 22A of the Rules of Court 2014, which allowed indemnity costs when a reasonable offer to settle was refused and the plaintiff obtained judgment on terms not more favourable than the offer. The judge then considered how the removal of O 22A under the Rules of Court 2021 affected the analysis.
Finally, the court had to determine the reasonableness of the specific costs claimed by the defendants, including both legal fees and disbursements. This required the judge to assess whether the claimed amounts fell within the appropriate range under the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 guidelines, and to scrutinise particular disbursement items such as printing costs and the number of trial bundles.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The judge began by setting out the settlement-offer framework. Under O 22A of the Rules of Court 2014, indemnity costs may be awarded when (i) there is a reasonable offer to settle as determined by the court, (ii) that offer is refused, and (iii) the plaintiff obtains judgment on terms not more favourable than the offer. However, the judge noted that O 22A had been removed from the Rules of Court 2021. Importantly, the judge did not treat the removal as meaning that offers to settle became irrelevant. Instead, the judge held that settlement offers remain relevant to costs because costs are still governed by the court’s discretion under O 21 r 2 of the ROC 2021.
Under O 21 r 2(1) and (2), costs are in the court’s discretion, and the court must have regard to all relevant circumstances, including “efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution.” The judge used this to explain the practical function of settlement offers: they compel parties to seriously assess their case, consult their solicitors on the financial cost of continuing, and weigh the costs of winning against the costs of losing. The judge also cautioned that the amount offered is not the same as the reasonableness of the offer. Reasonableness depends on the merits of the claim and other relevant factors the court considers.
The judge then addressed the procedural reality of negotiation. The excerpt indicates that the parties’ settlement discussions were protracted, with multiple offers and counteroffers. The judge suggested that in cases of prolonged negotiation, parties should make their final offer clear not only in the amount but also that it is the final offer. The judge further recommended that such offers should be marked “without prejudice as to the merits” but “open offer as to costs.” This guidance reflects a concern that without clarity, it is difficult for the court to determine whether a refusal should have costs consequences.
Turning to the parties’ conduct, the judge accepted that both sides made efforts to reach an amicable resolution, but their ideas of a reasonable settlement sum were far apart. The judge observed that the claim was neither complicated nor complex and that the documents filed were not voluminous. The judge also compared the case to Chia Soo Kiang (personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan, deceased) v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 56 (“Chia Soo Kiang”), where the claimant refused the defendants’ offer, made no counteroffer, filed affidavits without leave, and made major amendments a week before trial. In Chia Soo Kiang, the trial took eight full days and two half days, and the defendants had to pay for overseas witnesses’ transport and accommodation. The judge treated Chia Soo Kiang as distinguishable because, in the present case, the claimant had made efforts to mediate as well as offers to settle thereafter.
On the defendants’ request for costs of $350,000, the judge rejected the notion that the claimant’s conduct and the involvement of Senior Counsel justified that figure. The judge’s reasoning suggests that the court was not persuaded that the claimant’s behaviour amounted to a costs-shifting scenario warranting a high costs award, particularly given the relatively straightforward nature of the case and the claimant’s engagement in settlement discussions.
Instead of awarding the requested amount, the judge fixed costs within the mid-range under Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021. The judge articulated a structured approach: a reasonable figure for pre-trial work was $60,000; trial costs were $12,000 per day; and post-trial work was $20,000. The judge then applied these figures to the case’s actual trial duration. Since there were about five days of trial in total, trial costs were fixed at $60,000. The judge also fixed costs for the bifurcation application in HC/SUM 209/2024 (“SUM 209”) at $8,720 (including GST). The judge made no order as to costs for the claimant’s amendments to her statement of claim filed on 27 November 2024, reasoning that the amendments were minimal and that the removal of claims relating to antenatal care was due to the defendants’ belated disclosure of medical records in late 2024.
After determining the legal fees, the judge addressed disbursements. The claimant did not dispute many disbursements, including $16,742.59 for SUM 209 and other expenses, and $44,145 for expert witness fees. However, the claimant disputed the remaining $21,539.49. The judge accepted that coloured pages were interspersed throughout voluminous documents, making it infeasible to print selectively in monochrome. Nevertheless, the judge found there was no need for three trial bundles because the claimant had printed the bundles for the court and witnesses. On that basis, the judge fixed reasonable disbursements for printing two bundles and miscellaneous expenses at $10,900 (including GST). The judge then computed total disbursements at $71,787.59.
Finally, the judge consolidated the figures and ordered that the claimant pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59 (including disbursements). The analysis demonstrates that while settlement conduct is relevant, the court will still anchor costs in reasonableness, proportionality, and the Practice Directions’ guidelines, rather than simply awarding the amounts sought by a party based on settlement offer arguments alone.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that the claimant pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59 (including disbursements). This figure reflected a mid-range costs assessment under Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, rather than the higher costs amount the defendants sought.
Practically, the decision means that the defendants did not obtain an enhanced costs outcome tied to indemnity costs principles. Instead, the court fixed costs by reference to the case’s complexity, the trial duration, the bifurcation application, and the reasonableness of disbursements, including a reduction in printing-related expenses.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how settlement offers should be treated in costs even after the removal of O 22A of the Rules of Court 2014. The judge’s approach confirms that offers to settle remain relevant to costs under the ROC 2021 framework, but they do not automatically trigger indemnity costs. Rather, the court will consider settlement conduct as part of the broader discretionary inquiry mandated by O 21 r 2, including efforts at amicable resolution.
For litigators, the judgment also provides practical guidance on how to structure settlement offers in prolonged negotiations. The judge’s comments about making a final offer clearly final, and marking it appropriately as “without prejudice as to the merits” but “open offer as to costs,” are directly useful for counsel seeking to preserve the costs relevance of settlement communications.
Finally, the decision demonstrates the court’s willingness to anchor costs in the Practice Directions’ guidelines and to scrutinise disbursements. Even where a party argues that the other side’s conduct caused wasted costs, the court may still reduce or fix costs based on proportionality and the actual procedural demands of the case. This reinforces the importance of maintaining detailed, defensible cost breakdowns and ensuring that disbursements (such as printing and bundle preparation) are reasonable in number and scope.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2014 (O 22A) – indemnity costs for refusal of reasonable offers to settle (as described by the court)
- Rules of Court 2021 (O 21 r 2) – discretion on costs and mandatory consideration of relevant circumstances, including efforts at amicable resolution
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 – Appendix G (costs guidelines used to fix the quantum)
Cases Cited
- Chia Soo Kiang (personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan, deceased) v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 56
- Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 91 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.