Man B and W Diesel v PT Bumi: Indemnity Costs & Offer to Settle Dispute

Man B and W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and Mirrlees Blackstone Ltd (appellants-defendants) appealed against a decision of the High Court granting damages to PT Bumi International Tankers (respondent-plaintiff) in an action in tort. The Court of Appeal of Singapore had allowed the appeal, ruling that the respondent was not entitled to claim in tort for economic losses. Following the judgment, the appellants sought indemnity costs, arguing that the respondent had rejected their offer to settle made during the trial. The court ultimately did not grant the appellants' request for indemnity costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

The appellants' request for indemnity costs was not granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding indemnity costs after PT Bumi lost on appeal. Man B and W Diesel sought indemnity costs after PT Bumi rejected their offer to settle.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Man B and W Diesel S E Asia Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationIndemnity costs not grantedLost
Mirrlees Blackstone LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationIndemnity costs not grantedLost
PT Bumi International TankersRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Charles Lin Ming KhinDonaldson and Burkinshaw
Collin ChooStraits Law Practice LLC
Philip Tay Twan LipRajah and Tann

4. Facts

  1. The appellants made an offer to settle for US$1.5m on the third day of the trial.
  2. The respondent rejected the offer to settle.
  3. The trial judge ruled in favor of the respondent and quantified its loss at US$2,979,589.
  4. The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal and dismissed the respondent's claim.
  5. The appellants sought indemnity costs from the date of the offer to settle.
  6. The offer to settle was open for acceptance within 14 days.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Man B and W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and Another v PT Bumi International Tankers and Another Appeal, CA 75/2003, 79/2003, [2004] SGCA 22
  2. Man B and W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and Another v PT Bumi International Tankers and Another, , [2004] 2 SLR 300

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Trial commenced
Appellants made offer to settle
Judgment delivered by trial judge
Appeal allowed by Court of Appeal
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Entitlement to indemnity costs
    • Outcome: The court held that the appellants were not entitled to indemnity costs because the offer to settle was valid only for 14 days and had lapsed long before the final disposal of the claim.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Indemnity Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Tort

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Endurance 1Court of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 661SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer to settle should contain an element of compromise to encourage settlement.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (No 2)Court of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR 532SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer to settle must contain an element which would induce or facilitate settlement.
Data General (Canada) Ltd v Molnar Systems Group IncOntario Court of AppealYes(1991) 85 DLR (4th) 392CanadaCited to explain that compromise is not a necessary element in an offer to settle when there is no defence of any substance to a liquidated claim.
Tickell v Trifleska Pty LtdSupreme Court of New South WalesYes(1991) 25 NSWLR 353AustraliaCited to show that there was no element of compromise in the offer and refused to grant costs on an indemnity basis.
Burton v Global Benefit Plan Consultants IncUnknownYes(1999) 93 ACWS (3d) 223; (1999) 556 APR 86UnknownCited to show that the offer to settle was a nominal one as it effectively asked the plaintiff to capitulate. Indemnity costs were refused to the fifth defendant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 22A r 9(3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to settle
  • Indemnity costs
  • Standard costs
  • Rules of Court
  • Disposal of claim
  • Serious and genuine offer
  • Element of compromise

15.2 Keywords

  • Offer to settle
  • Indemnity costs
  • Civil procedure
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Offer to Settle90
Costs80
Civil Practice75
Damages50
Contract Law30
Breach of Contract25
Torts20
Personal Injury20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Offer to Settle