Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another

This was the costs decision after trial in Originating Claim No 235 of 2023, brought by Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa against Khoo Chong Kiat and Royal Clinics of O&G Pte Ltd.

The court noted that the first defendant offered a refund of his delivery fees on 9 May 2020 and made another settlement offer on 3 September 2021, which was not accepted. A planned mediation was put on hold by the defendants in February 2022 because of Singapore Medical Council investigations. Offers and counter-offers were exchanged from 4 December 2024 until shortly before trial, without agreement.

The defendants sought costs of $350,000, saying the claimant rejected their offers, was not truthful about her condition and showed no sincerity in settling, and that Senior Counsel was needed given the wider implications of her allegations. The claimant said the defendants declined to mediate and were slow to provide documents.

1. Whether the parties' settlement efforts justified a higher costs award under the ROC 2021.
2. Whether the claimant's conduct and the use of Senior Counsel justified costs of $350,000.
3. What sum should be allowed for the disputed disbursements.

Offers to settle remain relevant under O 21 r 2 of the ROC 2021, which requires regard to efforts at amicable resolution, but the amount offered is not the same as its reasonableness. Both sides had tried to settle; their figures were simply too far apart.

The claim was neither complicated nor complex. Chia Soo Kiang, where $600,000 indemnity costs were ordered, was distinguished because that claimant refused an offer without countering, filed affidavits without leave and amended late before a long trial. Neither the claimant's conduct nor the use of Senior Counsel justified $350,000, and mid-range costs under Appendix G of the Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021 were appropriate. The amendments were minimal and followed the defendants' late disclosure of medical records.

Most disbursements were undisputed. Colour printing was accepted, but three trial bundles were unnecessary, so printing and miscellaneous expenses were fixed at $10,900 (including GST).

The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendants costs fixed at $233,107.59 including disbursements: $152,600 (including GST) for the action, $8,720 (including GST) for the bifurcation application HC/SUM 209/2024, and disbursements of $71,787.59. No costs were ordered for the claimant's amendments to her statement of claim.