WEN HANRONG v HUATIONG CONTRACTOR PTE LTD & Anor

Facts

Mr Wen Hanrong, the plaintiff, was struck by a cement truck driven by the second defendant, an employee of the first defendant, Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd, while crossing a pedestrian crossing on his bicycle on 13 October 2017. He sued on 2 October 2020, and interlocutory judgment was entered by consent on 30 April 2021 on a 100% liability basis. On 5 January 2026 Deputy Registrar Don Ho awarded general damages of $9,800 and special damages of $3353.71, and ordered the plaintiff's solicitor, Ms Alyssa Lee, to show cause why she should not be personally liable for costs under O 59 r 8 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed). The plaintiff's appeal against the whole of that decision, MC/RA 3/2026, was dismissed by a District Judge on 11 March 2026.

This decision dealt with costs in Magistrate's Court Suit No 10455 of 2020. The defendants relied on an offer to settle under O 22A dated 25 November 2021 of $15,000 for damages, interest and costs, which the plaintiff did not accept. The plaintiff sought $6,000. Ms Lee argued that her requests for clarificatory medical reports were part of her duty, and the plaintiff's daughter said the family approved of her conduct.

Issues

1. What costs should follow where the defendants' unaccepted O 22A offer exceeded the damages awarded.
2. Whether the plaintiff's solicitor acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently in conducting the proceedings.
3. Whether that conduct caused the defendants unnecessary costs and whether a personal costs order was just.
4. What quantum of personal costs and what limit on solicitor-and-client costs should be ordered.

Holding

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff costs fixed at $3,000 (all-in) on the standard basis for work up to the offer, and the plaintiff to pay the defendants $24,000 (all-in) on the indemnity basis for costs after it. It found that Ms Lee had not shown cause, and ordered that the $24,000 be borne wholly by her personally. It also limited the solicitor-and-client costs between the plaintiff and Ms Lee to $5,000 (all-in).

Reasoning

The defendants' offer was a valid, serious and genuine O 22A offer and exceeded the total damages assessed, so the usual consequences followed. The court called the plaintiff's attempt to split his own offer between general and special damages artificial, with no basis in the rules. Little work had been done before the offer. For the defendants, the court disapplied the Magistrate's Court guidelines and used the District Court ones, because the plaintiff's conduct had produced nine pre-trial conferences, two extra medical experts, more than ten substantive medical reports, late fresh evidence and four hearing tranches.

Applying the three-stage test in Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205, as endorsed in Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew [1997] 3 SLR(R) 576, the court found Ms Lee's conduct improper, unreasonable and negligent in three respects. She pressed her own medical research on the doctors after they rejected it and made submissions contrary to the plaintiff's own doctors. She caused delay at the pre-assessment stage, and the court inferred that she had knowingly misrepresented matters at two pre-trial conferences, since she did not answer that concern. She disregarded basic procedure, including going along with the daughter's request to help the court interpreter, filing a bundle without leave, and calling a witness orally without leave.

Her conduct caused the defendants' extra costs. Given breaches of her paramount duty to the court, a lack of insight and the need for deterrence, the court held a personal order of the full $24,000 to be just, while noting not all of it was caused by her. The cap on her fees protected the plaintiff, an elderly lay litigant.

From the judgment