Nirmala D/O Thangavellu v Acestes Pte. Ltd.

Nirmala d/o Thangavellu injured her ankle while working as a security officer at a condominium and sued her employer, Acestes Pte. Ltd., in negligence in the District Court (Originating Claim No 1254 of 2024). The court dismissed her claim on 25 May 2026 in Nirmala d/o Thangavellu v Acestes Pte. Ltd. [2026] SGDC 177 and directed the parties to file costs submissions if they could not agree. They did not agree, and this judgment fixed the costs.

The defendant sought costs on an indemnity basis, relying on an offer made before trial, and its submissions put forward two different figures. The claimant's solicitors had said in negotiations that she should not bear costs because she was impecunious, but filed no submissions.

1. Whether the claimant's alleged impecuniosity justified departing from the rule that costs follow the event
2. Whether the defendant's pre-trial offer entitled it to indemnity costs
3. What amount of standard costs was appropriate given the conduct of the defendant's case

Costs follow the event, and impecuniosity is rarely enough to depart from that rule. The court also doubted the claim of impecuniosity, as the claimant had paid her own disbursements and retained four senior lawyers from two firms since May 2022 at the latest.

The defendant's offer required the claimant to discontinue and pay its costs. That was the opposite of a compromise and not a genuine offer, so it did not change the standard basis.

On quantum, the claim raised no real issues, so trial and post-trial work attracted the lowest figures. For pre-trial work the court departed from the guidelines because the defendant's preparation was deficient: its sole witness's affidavit was sparse and largely hearsay, the exhibits were tendered separately, the key video was not in the correct medium, and the photographs were undated and of poor quality. It applied a 25% discount to $9,000. The disbursements claimed were reasonable.

The court noted that the claimant's solicitors' letter before action described an accident involving a different client, but left it to the claimant to consider whether her lawyers had fulfilled their duties.

The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant costs fixed at $11,577.70 (all-in) on the standard basis, made up of $6,750 for pre-trial work, $2,500 for trial work, $1,000 for post-trial work and disbursements of $1,327.70. Before demanding or enforcing payment, the defendant's solicitors must send hardcopies of the two judgments to the claimant directly. The court declined to call on the claimant's lawyers to show cause on personal costs.