Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering: Offer to Settle Validity & Cost Consequences

Ram Das V N P, the Appellant, appealed against the District Judge's decision regarding an offer to settle made by SIA Engineering Co Ltd, the Respondent, in a personal injury claim. The High Court, presided by Hoo Sheau Peng, considered whether an offer to settle on liability only is a valid offer under Order 22A of the Rules of Court and whether the cost consequences of an unaccepted offer extend to the appeal stage. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the offer to settle valid and the Respondent entitled to indemnity costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on whether an offer to settle on liability only is valid and if cost consequences extend to appeal work. Judgment for Respondent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ram Das V N PAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
SIA Engineering Co LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal UpheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Perumal AthithamYeo Perumal Mohideen Law Corporation
Kanapathi Pillai NirumalanGlobal Law Alliance LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Appellant, an employee of the Respondent, sustained an injury at work.
  2. The Respondent made an offer to settle on liability only, offering to pay 50% of the damages.
  3. The Appellant did not accept the offer.
  4. The District Judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim.
  5. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, finding both parties 50% liable.
  6. The issue of costs remained outstanding.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co Ltd, District Court Appeal No 32 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 74
  2. Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Company Ltd, , [2014] SGDC 258
  3. Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Company Ltd, , [2012] SGDC 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant sustained an injury at work
Respondent offered to settle under Order 22A
Appellant made a similar offer to settle on liability to the Respondent
District Judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim with costs
Appellant accepted the Respondent’s Calderbank offer
Terms of settlement were recorded before the District Judge
Appeal heard by Hoo Sheau Peng
Judgment reserved
Judgment given

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Offer to Settle on Liability Only
    • Outcome: The court held that an offer to settle on liability only can be a valid and effective offer under O 22A of the Rules of Court.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Cost Consequences of Unaccepted Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court held that the cost consequences of an unaccepted offer to settle extend to the work done in respect of the appeal stage.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Personal Injury

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Aviation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Endurance 1”Court of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 970SingaporeCited regarding the validity of an offer to settle that deals only with liability.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1285SingaporeCited for the purpose behind the offer to settle regimes in various jurisdictions.
Singapore Airlines Ltd and another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and othersUnknownYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38SingaporeCited regarding the requirement that an offer to settle must be a serious and genuine offer.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appealUnknownYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267SingaporeCited regarding what constitutes a serious and genuine offer to settle depends on the circumstances and issues of the case.
Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another AppealHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 49SingaporeCited for the proposition that an offer to settle on liability alone is apt to attract the cost consequences under O 22A r 9.
Xu Ren Li v Nakano Singapore (Pte) LtdDistrict CourtYes[2011] SGDC 159SingaporeCited for the proposition that an offer to settle on liability alone is apt to attract the cost consequences under O 22A r 9.
Data General (Canada) Ltd v Molnar Systems Group IncOntario Court of AppealYes(1991) 85 DLR (4th) 392CanadaCited for the rationale of the O 22A regime to encourage the termination of litigation by agreement of the parties.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengUnknownYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the rationale behind O 22A to encourage realistic assessments and reasonable offers.
Wyno Marine Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Lim Teck Cheng and OthersHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 340SingaporeCited regarding the requirement that an offer to settle should contain reasonable terms.
Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matterUnknownYes[2010] 4 SLR 137SingaporeCited for the definition of the word “claim”.
Mahoney v Curwood Transport LtdNewfoundland Supreme CourtYes[1998] NJ No 311CanadaCited for the validity of an offer to settle in a bifurcated trial.
Hunger Project v Council on Mind Abuse (C.O.M.A) Inc et alOntario Court (General Division)Yes(1995) 121 DLR (4th) 734CanadaCited for the principle that the offer system increases the settlement incentives.
Coombes v Road and Traffic Authority & Ors (No 2)Court of Appeal of New South WalesYes[2007] NSWCA 70AustraliaCited for the principle that an offer to settle in respect of liability only is valid.
Thomas William Vale v Timothy David Eggins (No 2)UnknownYes[2007] NSWCA 12AustraliaCited for the principle that no objection was expressed in relation to an offer made as to liability only.
Whitehouse Properties Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing (NSW) LtdUnknownYes(1992) 28 NSWLR 17AustraliaCited for the principle that an offer to settle would validly attract the cost consequences even if the offer did not relate to all the claims for relief made in the proceedings.
Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation (S) LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 328SingaporeCited for the principle that offers to settle do not apply only to monetary claims.
Tan Shwu Leng v Singapore Airlines Limited and anotherHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 51SingaporeCited for the proposition that the test for favourability must be in dollars and cents.
LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte LtdUnknownYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 134SingaporeCited for the principle that favourability should not be restricted only to monetary terms.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte LtdUnknownYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20SingaporeCited for the principle that favourability must be determined in the context in which it was used.
Mercer v GollopUnknownYes[2000] NJ No 98CanadaCited as a recent Canadian case that followed Mahoney.
Webster v BCR ConstructionUnknownYes[2012] OJ No 6672CanadaCited as a recent Canadian case that followed Mahoney.
Niagara Structural Steel (St. Catherines) Ltd v WD Laflamme LtdUnknownYes[1987] OJ No 2239CanadaCited to argue that O 22A does not apply to appeals.
Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd v Computer Interface (S) Pte Ltd (No 2)Court of AppealYes[2004] SGCA 28SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant-appellant was entitled to indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle pursuant to O 22A r 9 of the ROC.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] SGCA 5SingaporeCited for the pre-conditions in O 22A which must be satisfied before the cost consequences will come into play.
Moore v Woodforth (No 2)UnknownYes[2003] NSWCA 46AustraliaCited to argue that indemnity costs should not be awarded against him in respect of the appeal.
Alagamalai s/o Veerasamy v Chan Liau ChuanHigh CourtYes[1994] SGHC 267SingaporeCited for the principle that a departure from O 22A r 9(3) should only be made when the circumstances justify it and when the interest of justice requires it.
South Sydney Council v Morris (No 3)UnknownYes[2001] NSWCA 200AustraliaCited to argue that indemnity costs should not be awarded against him in respect of the appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Newfoundland Rules of the Supreme Court, 1986, c 42, Sched D r 20A
New South Wales Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 22 r 2
New South Wales Uniform Civil Procedure Code (Reg No 418 of 2005) (NSW)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 22ASingapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9ASingapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 209Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to Settle
  • Liability
  • Indemnity Costs
  • Rules of Court
  • Bifurcated Trial
  • Damages
  • Assessment of Damages

15.2 Keywords

  • offer to settle
  • costs
  • indemnity costs
  • liability
  • appeal
  • Singapore
  • Rules of Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs80
Civil Procedure75
Contract Law30
Employment Law25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Settlement
  • Personal Injury