Paramjeet Kaur A/P Balwan Singh v GRAB RENTALS PTE. LTD & Anor

Facts

Mdm Paramjeet Kaur A/P Balwan Singh, administratrix of the estate of her late husband, Mr Kuldeep Singh A/L Amar Singh, claimed damages over a road accident on 15 September 2018 in which her husband's motorcycle and a private hire car driven by the 2nd Defendant, Mr Mohamed Aydi Bin Mohamed Yusoff, were involved. The car was then owned by the 1st Defendant, Grab Rentals Pte Ltd. The action, District Court Originating Claim No 1489 of 2024, began on 5 September 2024.

The defendants applied for security for costs of $25,000. The claimant later discontinued against the 1st Defendant, and on 2 October 2025 a Deputy Registrar required her to provide $8,000 by bankers' guarantee as security for the 2nd Defendant's costs, failing which the action would be stayed. She appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 58 of 2025. It was undisputed that she is a Malaysian citizen living in Ipoh, Perak, that she is impecunious, and that her counsel had acted for her pro bono since May 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the court's discretion to order security for costs was enlivened because the claimant is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction.
2. Whether it was just to order security, given the strength of the claim, the 2nd Defendant's limitation defence and the claimant's impecuniosity.
3. Whether costs of the appeal could be awarded to a claimant represented pro bono.

Holding

The District Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Deputy Registrar's orders requiring the claimant to furnish security for the 2nd Defendant's costs. It awarded the claimant costs of the appeal of $3,000, inclusive of disbursements.

Reasoning

The court applied the two-stage framework set out in [2023] SGHC 178. The first stage was plainly met: the claimant's residence in Malaysia satisfied O 9 r 12(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021.

At the second stage, the court did not examine the merits in detail. The claim was bona fide and plausible with a good prospect of success, especially as the 2nd Defendant had been convicted after trial under s 304A(b) of the Penal Code for causing death by a negligent act. His defence that the claim was time-barred under s 24A(2) of the Limitation Act 1959 was also plausible, but it rested on the claimant's constructive knowledge of his identity and turned on facts that only a trial could decide. The most crucial factor was her finances. Following the High Court's decision in Ong Jane Rebecca, impecuniosity alone does not justify security against an individual, and public policy leans towards access to the courts for natural persons. The court was satisfied that she could not provide security and that an order would stifle her claim. It acknowledged that the 2nd Defendant might not recover his costs, but held that this did not fetter the discretion to refuse security; ordering it would not accord with the Ideals in O 3 r 1.

On costs, the 2nd Defendant's argument that no costs should go to a pro bono litigant was clearly wrong in light of [2016] 3 SLR 1164 and [2017] SGHC 270, and was withdrawn. Costs followed the event.

From the judgment