Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 56
- Title: Chia Soo Kiang (personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan, deceased) v Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and others
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Suit No: 554 of 2019
- Date of Judgment: 10 March 2023
- Judge: Choo Han Teck J
- Decision Type: Costs decision (quantum and basis of costs following dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim)
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Chia Soo Kiang (personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan, deceased)
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd; (2) Dr Dorai Raj D. Appadorai; (3) Dr Lee Wei Sheng; (4) Dr Ranjana Acharya
- Legal Area: Civil procedure – Costs
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court (O 22A r 9(3))
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGHC 56 (as provided in the extract)
- Judgment Length: 5 pages; 1,015 words (as stated in metadata)
Summary
This High Court decision concerns the costs consequences of an unsuccessful medical negligence-type civil action brought by the personal representative of a deceased patient’s estate. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed entirely on 13 October 2022. After the trial, the defendants sought costs on an indemnity basis, relying on a settlement offer made on 24 April 2020.
The court accepted that the defendants had made an offer to settle (“OTS”) in the sum of $15,000 in full and final settlement, and that the offer was open with no deadline for acceptance. The plaintiff did not accept the OTS. Applying the costs regime under O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court, the judge held that indemnity costs were warranted unless there were strong reasons to depart from that default. The court found no such strong reasons, notwithstanding criticisms of the plaintiff’s conduct in the litigation.
On quantum, the court assessed that standard basis costs would have been in the region of $400,000, while indemnity basis costs would be in the region of $600,000. The judge exercised discretion to fix overall costs at $600,000 inclusive of costs for certain interlocutory summonses that had been ruled against the plaintiff. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ disbursements as claimed, which were substantial, largely due to expert witness expenses and related logistics.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying action, Suit No 554 of 2019, was brought by the plaintiff, Chia Soo Kiang, as the personal representative of the estate of Tan Yaw Lan (deceased). The defendants were Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and three doctors associated with the hospital. While the extract provided focuses on the costs phase, it is clear that the matter proceeded to trial and ultimately ended with the plaintiff’s claim being dismissed entirely.
Before the trial, the defendants made an OTS on 24 April 2020. The offer was for $15,000 in full and final settlement of the action. Importantly for the costs analysis, the OTS was described as “open” and had no deadline for acceptance. The plaintiff did not accept the OTS. The court later treated the refusal of this offer as a key factor supporting indemnity costs.
The trial itself took substantial time: eight full days and two half days. The judge observed that a significant portion of the trial-related expenses was attributable to expert witnesses, including the costs of paying experts and the transport and accommodation of witnesses from overseas. This context became relevant when assessing whether the disbursements claimed were reasonable.
In addition to the main trial, the litigation involved multiple interlocutory steps. The defendants’ costs application included disbursements connected to four interlocutory summonses: (a) Summons No 746 of 2021 (leave to give evidence via video-link); (b) Summons No 798 of 2021 (for discovery); (c) Summons No 835 of 2021 (to strike out an affidavit); and (d) Summons No 837 of 2021 (to amend the statement of claim). The judge noted that costs for these summonses had been ordered against the plaintiff, but the costs attributable to them were relatively lower than the overall disbursement figures claimed.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was whether the defendants should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis, rather than on the standard basis, following the plaintiff’s failure at trial. This required the court to consider the effect of the defendants’ OTS made on 24 April 2020 and the plaintiff’s refusal to accept it.
A second issue concerned the quantum of costs and disbursements. The defendants sought very substantial sums: $625,500 for costs and $156,107.21 for disbursements. The plaintiff contended for a far lower figure, proposing $120,000 for trial costs and $13,500 for certain interlocutory summonses, and argued that no costs should be awarded for Summons No 746 of 2021.
Finally, the court had to address whether the plaintiff’s litigation conduct provided “strong reasons” to depart from the default indemnity costs position. Counsel for the defendants urged the court to take into account alleged procedural missteps, including a major amendment to the claim shortly before trial, affidavits filed without leave, and the resulting need to vacate and reschedule the trial. The plaintiff’s counsel, by contrast, sought to limit costs and to argue that certain summonses should not attract costs.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court’s analysis began with the settlement-offer framework. The judge accepted that the defendants had jointly made an OTS on 24 April 2020 for $15,000 in full and final settlement. The offer was open-ended, meaning it did not expire by a fixed acceptance deadline. The plaintiff did not accept the OTS. In these circumstances, the judge considered the operation of O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court, which empowers the court to order indemnity costs where a reasonable offer to settle is refused and the rejecting party does not do better at trial.
Crucially, the judge emphasised that indemnity costs are not intended as punishment for a failed civil action. Instead, they are linked to the refusal of a reasonable settlement offer and the resulting costs that might have been avoided. The judge reasoned that where a party refuses a reasonable offer and ends up worse off than the terms offered, the other party should not be left to bear the costs that could have been saved. The court also noted that even an offer of mediation was rebuffed, reinforcing the conclusion that the plaintiff’s side did not engage with cost-saving settlement processes.
On the question of “strong reasons” to depart from indemnity costs, the judge acknowledged that there were criticisms of the plaintiff’s conduct. The defendants pointed to a major amendment made a week before trial, affidavits of crucial witnesses filed without leave, and the need to vacate and reschedule the trial. The judge accepted that these were relevant considerations. However, the judge also observed that the plaintiff was acting as the administrator/personal representative of the deceased’s estate and that the action could only proceed on the basis of medical and legal advice received. The judge therefore did not treat the procedural shortcomings as sufficient to negate the settlement-offer consequences.
In addressing quantum, the court adopted a structured approach. The judge stated that costs on a standard basis would be in the region of $400,000. Indemnity basis costs, reflecting the more generous approach to recoverable costs under that basis, would be in the region of $600,000. While the defendants had asked for $625,500, the judge exercised discretion to fix overall costs at $600,000. This figure was intended to include the costs of the four interlocutory summonses that were ruled against the plaintiff.
The court also dealt with the plaintiff’s attempt to narrow the costs claim. The plaintiff argued that the appropriate trial costs were $120,000 and that no costs should be awarded for Summons No 746 of 2021. The judge disagreed, holding that costs for all four summonses ought to be paid by the plaintiff. However, the judge noted that the costs attributable to those summonses were much lower than the overall disbursement figures, and thus the main cost driver remained the expert-related expenses and logistics.
With respect to disbursements, the judge accepted that the claimed sum of $156,107.21 was high, but found it explicable in light of the trial’s expert-heavy nature. The judge considered the experts’ fees and found them reasonable: $21,400 for Dr Kang, $35,042.50 for Dr Huang, and $56,422.50 for A/Prof Yeo. The judge also accepted other disbursement components, including transcription costs of $13,080.75 and $6,178.74 for a witness of fact who travelled from Malaysia and stayed until she testified.
Finally, the judge reflected on the practical realities of costs recovery. The court observed that the amount was “undoubtedly very high” and that, based on the evidence at trial, the deceased did not appear to be wealthy. The judge acknowledged that the defendants might not be able to recover the costs in full. Nevertheless, the court maintained that costs orders serve the legal function of compensating the successful party, and that the settlement-offer framework justified indemnity costs in this case. The judge also suggested that mediation might have clarified merits and reduced the burden of costs, potentially leading to a different outcome.
What Was the Outcome?
The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs fixed at $600,000 on an indemnity basis. This sum was inclusive of the costs relating to the four interlocutory summonses (Summons Nos 746, 798, 835 and 837 of 2021) that had been ruled against the plaintiff. The practical effect is that the defendants recovered a substantial portion of their overall costs, but the court did not award the full $625,500 sought.
In addition, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ disbursements as claimed, amounting to $156,107.21. The court accepted that the disbursements were largely driven by expert witness fees and related travel and accommodation expenses, and it therefore did not reduce the disbursement figure despite its magnitude.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts apply the settlement-offer regime to determine whether indemnity costs should follow a refusal of an OTS. The case reinforces that indemnity costs are not merely a consequence of losing at trial; they are linked to the refusal of a reasonable offer that could have avoided or reduced costs. Where the offer is open-ended and the rejecting party ends up worse off, the default position under O 22A r 9(3) is strongly engaged.
For litigators, the case also demonstrates that procedural conduct, while relevant, may not override the settlement-offer analysis. Even though the judge noted issues such as late amendments and affidavits filed without leave, the court still concluded that there were no “strong reasons” to depart from indemnity costs. This suggests that courts may treat settlement-offer refusal as a more decisive factor than litigation missteps, particularly where the plaintiff’s role is limited to acting on advice and the action’s merits have already been rejected at trial.
From a practical standpoint, the judgment provides guidance on how courts assess both costs and disbursements. The court’s acceptance of expert-related disbursements underscores that where a case is expert-intensive, disbursements may legitimately be high, and reasonableness will be evaluated with reference to the specific expert fees, transcription costs, and witness travel and accommodation expenses. The case therefore serves as a useful reference point for preparing and challenging costs schedules, especially in complex medical or technical disputes.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court (Singapore), Order 22A, rule 9(3) (indemnity costs following refusal of an offer to settle)
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGHC 56 (as provided in the extract)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 56 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.