CHIA SOO KIANG (SUING AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND SUCCESSOR OF TAN YAW LAN, DECEASED) v TAN TOCK SENG HOSPITAL PTE. LTD. & 3 Ors

Facts

Chia Soo Kiang, as personal representative of the estate of the late Tan Yaw Lan, sued Tan Tock Seng Hospital Pte Ltd and three doctors in Suit No 554 of 2019. On 13 October 2022 Choo Han Teck J dismissed the claim in its entirety. This short judgment deals only with the costs of that action.

On 24 April 2020 the defendants had jointly made an open offer to settle for $15,000 in full and final settlement, with no deadline for acceptance. The plaintiff did not take it up. The defendants sought costs on an indemnity basis fixed at $625,500, plus disbursements of $156,107.21, covering four interlocutory summonses on video-link evidence, discovery, striking out an affidavit and amending the statement of claim. The plaintiff argued for $120,000 for the trial and $13,500 for three of the summonses, and nothing for the video-link application.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants should receive indemnity costs because the plaintiff failed to accept their offer to settle.
2. Whether the plaintiff's conduct of the litigation should increase the costs payable.
3. What amount of costs and disbursements should be fixed for the action and its summonses.

Holding

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs on an indemnity basis from 25 April 2020, fixed at $600,000 inclusive of the costs of all four summonses, together with disbursements as claimed.

Reasoning

On the offer to settle, the judge found no reason to withhold indemnity costs under O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court. Costs are not a punishment for a failed claim, but a party who rejects a reasonable offer and ends up worse off should bear the costs that settlement would have saved. The plaintiff had also rebuffed an offer of mediation.

On conduct, the judge accepted that the claim was badly conceived, was heavily amended a week before trial, and that witness affidavits were filed without leave, forcing the trial to be re-scheduled. These matters were not, however, held against the plaintiff, who was only the estate's administrator acting on medical and legal advice, and the advice received was not a matter for inquiry.

On quantum, standard costs were put at about $400,000 and indemnity costs at about $600,000. The summonses attracted much lower costs, so a single figure of $600,000 was fixed to include them. The disbursements were high mainly because of expert fees and the cost of bringing a witness from Malaysia, but the expert fees were considered reasonable. The judge observed that the deceased did not appear wealthy, so recovery was uncertain, and that mediation might have produced a different result.

From the judgment