Vita Life Sciences v Arthur Andersen: Offer to Settle & Costs Dispute
Vita Life Sciences Limited and Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd (Plaintiffs) sued Arthur Andersen (Defendant) for breach of contract and/or negligence. The parties reached a settlement via an Offer to Settle (OTS). A dispute arose over costs, specifically the applicability of Order 22A Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court. The High Court dismissed the defendant's application, finding that the OTS did provide for costs and that Order 22A Rule 9(2) did not apply.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over costs arising from an Offer to Settle (OTS) accepted by Vita Life Sciences from Arthur Andersen. The court dismissed Arthur Andersen's application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vita Life Sciences Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Arthur Andersen | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Ernst & Young | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chi Qiyuan Douglas AR | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of contract and/or negligence in connection with audits of financial statements.
- The defendant made an Offer to Settle (OTS) to pay the plaintiffs S$450,000 in full settlement of the claim and costs up to the date of the offer.
- The plaintiffs accepted the defendant's OTS.
- A dispute arose over whether Order 22A Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court applied to the OTS, concerning costs after the date of the offer.
- The plaintiffs extracted an Order of Court which made no mention of the defendant's purported entitlement to costs under Order 22A r 9(2) of the Rules.
- The defendant applied to set aside the Extracted Order and for an order that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs from 14 days after the date of service of the OTS to the date of acceptance.
5. Formal Citations
- Vita Life Sciences Limited and Another v Arthur Andersen and Another, Suit 454/2005, SUM 720/2008, [2008] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs' writ of summons issued. | |
| Pre-trial conference held; directions given for filing AEICs. | |
| Defendant served Offer to Settle on plaintiffs. | |
| Parties exchanged AEICs. | |
| Taking of objections to AEICs completed. | |
| Plaintiffs served Offer to Settle on defendant. | |
| Defendant served notice of intention to withdraw Offer to Settle. | |
| Plaintiffs accepted defendant's Offer to Settle. | |
| Parties attended pre-trial conference; judgment entered by consent. | |
| Extracted Order of Court extracted by plaintiffs' solicitors. | |
| Defendant's solicitors took out application to set aside Extracted Order. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Applicability of Order 22A Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court
- Outcome: The court held that Order 22A Rule 9(2) of the Rules of Court did not apply to the defendant's Offer to Settle because the offer did provide for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Setting Aside of Extracted Order
- Outcome: The court found no practical purpose in setting aside the Extracted Order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Endurance I | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that Rule 49 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure was in pari materia with Order 22A of the Rules of Court. |
| Tearle v Smith | Ontario Court | Yes | [2005] OJ No 4594 | Canada | Cited for the proposition that the purpose of Rule 49.07(5) is to provide for a resolution of the costs issue where an offer is silent or ambiguous with respect to costs. |
| Bickmore v Bickmore | Ontario Court | Yes | (1996) OTC LEXIS 4191 | Canada | Cited for the proposition that where there was a partial provision of costs in an OTS, the OTS was to be treated as being “silent” with respect to costs for the time periods not covered by the OTS. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu Leng | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 593 | Singapore | Cited for the objective of Order 22A of the Rules of Court to facilitate settlement between disputing parties in an efficient and costs-saving manner. |
| Data General (Canada) v Molnar Systems Group | Unknown | Yes | (1991) 85 DLR (4th) 392 | Canada | Cited for the objective of Order 22A of the Rules of Court to facilitate settlement between disputing parties in an efficient and costs-saving manner. |
| SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Service Ltd) v Teo Chye Seng Douglas | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 15 | Singapore | Cited for the observations of Woo Bih Li J on Order 22A r 9(2) of the Rules of Court. |
| Rooney (Litigation Guardian of) v Graham | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | Rooney (Litigation Guardian of) v Graham (2001) Carswell Ont 887, 198 DLR (4th) 1 (sub nom Rooney v Graham) 144 OAC 240, 53 OR (3d) 685 | Canada | Cited for the dicta from the Ontario Court of Appeal case of Rooney (Litigation Guardian of) v Graham (2001) Carswell Ont 887, 198 DLR (4th) 1 (sub nom Rooney v Graham) 144 OAC 240, 53 OR (3d) 685 (“Rooney”), where Laskin JA (Rosenberg JA concurring) made the following observations concerning r 49.07(5) of the Ontario Rules, at [43]: By stating what happens when an offer contains no provision for costs, rule 49.07(5) implicitly affirms that a Rule 49 offer can contain a provision for costs. |
| The Sussex Peerage | Unknown | Yes | (1844) 11 Cl. & F 85 | United Kingdom | Cited for the fundamental principle of statutory interpretation. |
| Pinner v Everett | Unknown | Yes | [1969] 1 WLR 1266 | United Kingdom | Cited for the plain meaning rule in statutory interpretation. |
| PP v Low Kok Heng | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of statutory interpretation in Singapore. |
| Ng Chin Siau v How Kim Chuan | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 809 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of statutory interpretation in Singapore. |
| Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck | Unknown | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 28 | Singapore | Cited for the general principle that the court will not interfere to set aside a consent judgment or order after it has been made and perfected otherwise than in a fresh action brought to set aside such a judgment on grounds of fraud or on any of the grounds upon which an agreement can be set aside. |
| Ainsworth v Wilding | Unknown | Yes | [1896] 1 Ch 673 | United Kingdom | Cited for the exceptions to the general principle are where there has been a slip in drawing up the judgment or order which has been entered and where there has been an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. |
| Kinch v Walcott | Privy Council | Yes | [1929] AC 482 | United Kingdom | Cited for the exceptions to the general principle are where there has been a slip in drawing up the judgment or order which has been entered and where there has been an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. |
| Indian Overseas Bank v Motorcycle Industries (1973) Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 89 | Singapore | Cited for the exceptions to the general principle are where there has been a slip in drawing up the judgment or order which has been entered and where there has been an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. |
| Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 244 | Singapore | Cited for the exceptions to the general principle are where there has been a slip in drawing up the judgment or order which has been entered and where there has been an error in expressing the manifest intention of the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 22A of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 3 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 3(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 9(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 9(5) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 42 rr 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 42 r 8 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 42 rr 8(3) and 8(4) of the Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Offer to Settle
- Costs
- Order 22A Rule 9(2)
- Rules of Court
- Extracted Order
- Consent Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- offer to settle
- costs
- singapore
- civil procedure
- contract
- negligence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Offer to Settle | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Principles | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Offer to Settle
- Statutory Interpretation