Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 91
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-05-20
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa
- Defendant/Respondent: Khoo Chong Kiat and another
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure – Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2014, Rules of Court 2021
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 56, [2025] SGHC 91
- Judgment Length: 6 pages, 1,477 words
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the quantum of costs to be awarded following a civil trial. The plaintiff, Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa, had brought a claim against the defendants, Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd, in relation to a medical procedure. Both parties had made attempts to settle the matter prior to trial, but were unable to reach an agreement on the appropriate amount. The court had to determine the reasonable costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa, had brought an originating claim against the defendants, Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd. The case involved a dispute over a medical procedure performed by the defendants. Both parties had made multiple attempts to settle the matter prior to the commencement of the trial.
The first defendant, Khoo Chong Kiat, initially offered a refund of his delivery fees as a gesture of goodwill on 9 May 2020, three days after the plaintiff developed a fistula. He then made another offer to settle the claim on 3 September 2021, but this was not accepted by the plaintiff. In late 2021, the parties arranged to mediate, but this was put "on hold" by the defendants in February 2022 due to ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council. No further progress was made after that.
On 4 December 2024, two months before the trial commenced, the plaintiff made an offer to the defendants. The defendants counter-proposed a figure on 13 January 2025. One week later, the plaintiff made a revised offer to the defendants, which was rejected three days later. The trial then began more than a week after the rejection of the plaintiff's revised offer.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issue in this case was the determination of the appropriate costs to be awarded to the defendants following the conclusion of the trial. The court had to consider the parties' efforts at reaching an amicable settlement, as well as the reasonableness of the offers made, in order to decide on the quantum of costs.
The court also had to consider the impact of the changes to the Rules of Court, specifically the removal of Order 22A which had previously allowed for the award of indemnity costs in certain circumstances. The court had to determine how this change would affect the assessment of costs in the present case.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court acknowledged that while Order 22A of the Rules of Court 2014 had been removed, this did not mean that offers to settle were now inconsequential. The court stated that parties may still make such offers, and how that may affect the court's order on costs would be left to the court's discretion, depending on the facts of each case.
The court noted that the amount offered in a settlement is not the same as the reasonableness of that offer. The court stated that the reasonableness of an offer depends on the merits of the claim, as well as other factors that the court deems relevant. In the present case, the court found that the parties' respective ideas of what a reasonable sum to settle the matter amicably were too far apart.
The court also distinguished the present case from the Chia Soo Kiang case, where the claimant had refused the defendants' offer to settle and made no counteroffer, and had also filed affidavits without leave and made major amendments to his claim a week before the trial commenced. In contrast, the court found that the plaintiff in the present case had made efforts to mediate and had made offers to the defendants to settle the matter.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59, which included $161,320 for the trial costs and $71,787.59 for disbursements. The court arrived at this figure by considering the guidelines set out in Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, and by making adjustments to the defendants' claimed costs based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides valuable guidance on the assessment of costs in civil proceedings, particularly in the context of settlement negotiations. The court's analysis of the impact of the changes to the Rules of Court, and its emphasis on the reasonableness of settlement offers rather than just the quantum, offers important insights for legal practitioners.
The case also highlights the importance of parties making genuine efforts to reach an amicable resolution, and the potential consequences for those who fail to do so. The court's willingness to distinguish the present case from the Chia Soo Kiang case, based on the parties' conduct, demonstrates the court's nuanced approach to cost awards.
Overall, this judgment serves as a useful reference for lawyers and litigants navigating the complex landscape of civil procedure and cost awards in Singapore.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2014
- Rules of Court 2021
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)
- [2025] SGHC 91 (Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another)
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.