Tanner Sheridan Wayne v NRG Engineering: Withdrawal of Offer to Settle Under Order 22A of the Rules of Court
In Tanner Sheridan Wayne v NRG Engineering Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the validity of withdrawing an offer to settle under Order 22A of the Rules of Court. The plaintiff, Tanner Sheridan Wayne, sued the defendant, NRG Engineering Pte Ltd, for unpaid salary, bonuses, and commission. The defendant made an offer to settle, which the plaintiff later purported to accept after the defendant had served a notice of withdrawal. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the offer to settle was effectively withdrawn upon service of the notice of withdrawal, and there was no implied minimum one-day period for acceptance after such service.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court held that an offer to settle is effectively withdrawn upon service of Form 34, with no implied minimum one-day acceptance period.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tanner Sheridan Wayne | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Rasanathan s/o Sothynathan, Nazirah d/o Kairo Din |
| NRG Engineering Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kelvin Chia Swee Chye |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Rasanathan s/o Sothynathan | Colin Ng & Partners LLP |
| Nazirah d/o Kairo Din | Colin Ng & Partners LLP |
| Kelvin Chia Swee Chye | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Defendant made an offer to settle to the Plaintiff on 30 April 2013.
- Plaintiff proposed a higher settlement amount on 5 June 2013.
- Defendant rejected Plaintiff's proposal and gave notice of intention to withdraw the offer on 18 June 2013.
- Plaintiff purported to accept the original offer on 18 June 2013.
- Defendant served a Notice of Withdrawal of Offer on 19 June 2013.
- Plaintiff served an Acceptance of Offer on 20 June 2013.
- Plaintiff applied for judgment to be entered against the Defendant.
5. Formal Citations
- Tanner Sheridan Wayne v NRG Engineering Pte Ltd, District Court Suit No 324 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal Subordinate Courts No 152 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 233
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant served an offer to settle. | |
| Plaintiff suggested a higher settlement amount. | |
| Defendant rejected Plaintiff's proposal and gave notice of intention to withdraw the Offer to Settle. | |
| Plaintiff purported to accept the Defendant’s Offer to Settle. | |
| Defendant served a Notice of Withdrawal of Offer. | |
| Plaintiff served an Acceptance of Offer. | |
| Plaintiff filed application for judgment. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Withdrawal of Offer to Settle
- Outcome: The court held that an offer to settle is effectively withdrawn upon service of the Notice of Withdrawal of Offer in Form 34, provided that at least one day’s prior notice of the intention to withdraw the offer is given.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Validity of withdrawal notice
- Minimum notice period
8. Remedies Sought
- Unpaid Salary
- Bonuses
- Commission
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Employment Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Engineering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chia Kim Huay (litigation representative of the estate of Chua Chye Hee, deceased) v Saw Shu Mawa Min Min and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1096 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of Order 22A r 3(2) regarding the withdrawal of an offer to settle, but the court declined to follow its construction of the rule. |
| Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased) | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 178 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of an offeror having to give prior notice of the intention to withdraw his offer to settle before he serves the “Notice of Withdrawal of Offer”. |
| SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited) v Koh Swee Ann | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Cited for the correct construction of O 22A r 3(2) read with r 3(3) and Form 34 regarding the procedure for withdrawing an offer to settle. |
| Sheriffa Taibah bte Abdul Rahman v Lim Kim Som | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 375 | N/A | Cited for the description of the generally accepted understanding of ratio decidendi. |
| Indo Commercial Society (Pte) Ltd v Ebrahim and another | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 667 | N/A | Cited for the description of the generally accepted understanding of ratio decidendi. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 22A of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 1 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 3 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A r 6 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Offer to Settle
- Withdrawal of Offer
- Notice of Withdrawal of Offer
- Order 22A
- Rules of Court
- Form 33
- Form 34
- Form 35
15.2 Keywords
- offer to settle
- withdrawal
- Order 22A
- Rules of Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Settlement Offers
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Rules of Court
- Settlement Offers