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: 235 of 2023
- Judgment Date(s): 17 April 2025; 2 May 2025 (heard); judgment reserved; 20 May 2025 (delivered)
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Parties: Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa (Claimant); Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd (Defendants)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure – Costs – Quantum
- Procedural Posture: Costs determination following trial (including costs for pre-trial work, trial, bifurcation application, and post-trial matters)
- Key Statutory/Rules Framework Mentioned: Order 22A of the Rules of Court 2014 (ROC 2014) (indemnity costs for refusal of reasonable offer to settle); Order 21 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021) (court’s discretion on costs and relevant circumstances including efforts at amicable resolution)
- Practice Directions Mentioned: Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 (guidelines for costs)
- Related Application Mentioned: HC/SUM 209/2024 (“SUM 209”)—bifurcation application
- Other Case Mentioned for Costs Benchmark: 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”)
- Counsel: Selvam LLC for the claimant; Legal Clinic LLC for the defendants
- Judgment Length: 6 pages; 1,477 words
Summary
In Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another ([2025] SGHC 91), the High Court addressed how costs should be assessed after the parties’ dispute proceeded to trial despite multiple settlement attempts. The judgment is principally a costs decision, focusing on the quantum of costs and disbursements, and on how the court should treat settlement offers and the parties’ conduct in the pre-trial period.
The court accepted that both sides made efforts to resolve the matter amicably, but that their settlement positions were too far apart. It 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. The court also scrutinised disbursements, allowing most items but reducing printing-related expenses that were found to be excessive in light of what was already available.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute concerned medical issues arising after the claimant developed a fistula. The litigation trajectory, however, is best understood through the parties’ settlement behaviour and the procedural steps that followed. The first defendant made an initial settlement gesture on 9 May 2020—offering a refund of delivery fees as goodwill—shortly after the claimant developed the fistula. The claimant did not accept this offer.
Thereafter, the first defendant made another settlement offer on 3 September 2021. Again, the claimant did not accept. In late 2021, the parties arranged to mediate, but mediation was put “on hold” in February 2022 by the defendants due to ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council. The judgment indicates that this pause prevented progress towards resolution for a significant period.
As the matter approached trial, the claimant made a further offer to settle on 4 December 2024, approximately two months before trial commenced. The defendants responded with a counter-proposal on 13 January 2025. A 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.
At the costs stage, the court considered competing narratives about the conduct of the parties. The claimant argued that the defendants declined to mediate, were slow in providing information and documents (including medical records), and raised material matters belatedly, thereby causing wasted costs. The defendants, by contrast, emphasised that they made multiple offers to settle and that the claimant demanded sums that were “plainly disproportionate” to her alleged injuries. They also pointed to the appointment of Senior Counsel, asserting that the claimant’s allegations would have “serious widespread repercussions” on obstetric management in Singapore.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was how the court should exercise its discretion on costs, particularly in light of the parties’ settlement offers and their respective conduct. Although the judgment is not a full merits decision, it is clear that the court had to determine the appropriate costs quantum and whether any costs consequences should follow from the refusal of settlement offers.
A second issue concerned the relevance of the former indemnity costs regime under Order 22A of the Rules of Court 2014 (ROC 2014). The defendants’ position implicitly relied on the idea that offers to settle should have meaningful costs consequences if refused. The court therefore had to address the effect of the repeal of Order 22A under the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), and whether settlement offers remain relevant to costs even after the procedural change.
Third, the court had to decide what costs and disbursements were reasonable and properly incurred. This included assessing the costs for pre-trial work, trial days, post-trial work, and the costs of a bifurcation application (SUM 209). It also required evaluation of printing and miscellaneous disbursements, including whether the defendants’ printing expenses were justified by the volume and complexity of the documents.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by situating the costs analysis within the settlement-offer framework. It noted that under Order 22A of the ROC 2014, indemnity costs may be awarded where a reasonable offer to settle is refused and the plaintiff obtains judgment on terms not more favourable than the offer. However, the court emphasised that Order 22A was removed under ROC 2021. The removal did not render settlement offers irrelevant; rather, the court retained discretion to consider offers as part of the broader costs inquiry.
To explain this, the court referred to Order 21 r 2 of the ROC 2021, which provides that costs are in the court’s discretion and that, in exercising that discretion, the court must have regard to all relevant circumstances, including “efforts made by the parties at amicable resolution.” The court’s approach therefore treated settlement offers not as automatic triggers for indemnity costs, but as factual inputs into the overall assessment of reasonableness, fairness, and the conduct of the parties.
The court also articulated a practical rationale for settlement-offer relevance. An offer to settle can compel the opposing party to assess the case seriously, weighing the financial cost of pursuing litigation to the end against the cost of losing. Yet the court 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 factors the court considers relevant. The court illustrated this with an example: even a small offer may be reasonable if the claim is wholly unmeritorious, whereas a large offer may be unreasonable if the claim has strong merit.
Applying these principles to the case, the court observed that the parties were still negotiating and that their settlement positions were not aligned. The court suggested that, where negotiations are protracted, parties should make their final offer clear—not only as to the amount but that it is the final offer. The court also suggested that such offers should be marked “without prejudice as to the merits” but open as to costs. This guidance was not framed as a strict rule that automatically determines costs, but as a best practice to avoid ambiguity and to facilitate meaningful settlement assessment.
On the parties’ conduct, the court accepted that both sides made efforts to reach an amicable resolution. It recognised that the claim was neither complicated nor complex, and that the documents filed were not voluminous. This mattered because the court was assessing whether the costs incurred were proportionate to the work required. The court then compared the case to Chia Soo Kiang, where the claimant refused an offer to settle and 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 court distinguished Chia Soo Kiang on its facts. In the present case, the claimant had made efforts to mediate and made offers to settle thereafter. The court therefore did not treat the claimant’s refusal of the defendants’ settlement figure as equivalent to the more problematic conduct in Chia Soo Kiang. This distinction was important because it prevented the defendants from importing a “high costs” outcome from a case with materially different procedural and factual circumstances.
Regarding the defendants’ argument that the claimant’s conduct and the involvement of Senior Counsel justified costs of $350,000, the court rejected that proposition. The court did not accept that the mere appointment of Senior Counsel, or the claimant’s alleged lack of sincerity, warranted a higher costs award. Instead, it determined that costs should fall within the mid-range under Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021.
The court then applied the Appendix G guideline structure. It set a reasonable figure for pre-trial work at $60,000, trial at $12,000 per day, and post-trial work at $20,000. Since there were about five days of trial in total, the trial costs were fixed at $60,000. The court also fixed the costs of SUM 209 (the bifurcation application) at $8,720 (including GST). It 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.
Finally, the court addressed disbursements. The claimant did not dispute many disbursements, including the $16,742.59 for SUM 209 and other expenses, and $44,145 for expert witness fees. The claimant disputed the remaining $21,539.49. The court accepted that coloured pages were interspersed throughout voluminous documents, making it unfeasible for counsel to print selectively in monochrome. However, the court found there was no need for three trial bundles because the claimant had already printed bundles for the court and witnesses. It therefore fixed reasonable printing and miscellaneous expenses at $10,900 (including GST). This reduced the disbursement component and reflected a proportionality approach.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that the claimant pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59 (including disbursements). This figure reflected the court’s mid-range assessment under Appendix G, the fixed trial and bifurcation costs, and a reduced disbursement amount for printing and miscellaneous expenses.
Practically, the decision signals that even where settlement offers were exchanged and mediation was delayed, the court will not automatically impose indemnity-style consequences or award the maximum costs sought. Instead, the court will calibrate costs to what is reasonable and proportionate in light of the complexity of the case, the parties’ efforts at amicable resolution, and the necessity of the work and disbursements incurred.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters for practitioners because it clarifies how settlement offers should be treated in costs determinations after the repeal of Order 22A of the ROC 2014. While indemnity costs under the former regime are no longer directly available in the same way under ROC 2021, the court reaffirmed that offers to settle remain relevant. The key is that the court’s discretion under Order 21 r 2 requires consideration of “efforts made… at amicable resolution” and other relevant circumstances, rather than treating settlement offers as automatic cost penalties.
For litigators, the judgment also provides practical guidance on how to structure settlement offers during protracted negotiations. The court’s comments about making a final offer clear, and about marking offers “without prejudice as to the merits” but open as to costs, are useful for counsel seeking to preserve the costs relevance of settlement communications. Even though the court did not treat the offers as determinative, it indicated that clarity can affect how parties and the court evaluate reasonableness and conduct.
In addition, the decision is a useful reference point for costs quantum. By applying Appendix G mid-range guidelines and fixing trial costs based on the number of trial days, the court demonstrated a structured approach to costs assessment. The disbursement analysis—particularly the reduction of printing expenses where three trial bundles were unnecessary—also highlights that courts will scrutinise whether disbursements were genuinely required, even where documents are voluminous and colour printing is sometimes unavoidable.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2014 (ROC 2014), Order 22A (indemnity costs for refusal of reasonable offer to settle)
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), Order 21 r 2 (discretion on costs; relevant circumstances including efforts at amicable resolution)
- Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Appendix G (guidelines for costs)
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
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.