Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World: Costs Allocation After Partially Successful Claim for Negligence, Assault, and Wrongful Imprisonment

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Goel Adesh Kumar sued Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd for negligence, assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment, seeking $484,196.16 in damages. The court found in favor of Mr. Goel, apportioning 80% liability to Resorts World. Prior to judgment, Resorts World and SATS Security Services Pte Ltd made two offers to settle, which Mr. Goel rejected. The court addressed the allocation of costs, considering the offers to settle and the third-party proceedings involving SATS. The court ordered Resorts World to pay Mr. Goel's costs up to 2 July 2014 on the Magistrate's Court scale, and Mr. Goel to pay Resorts World's costs from 2 July 2014 on the High Court scale. Resorts World was also ordered to pay 80% of SATS' costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Orders made for costs to be paid by both plaintiff and defendant, and for the defendant to pay a portion of the third party's costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addresses costs allocation after Goel Adesh Kumar partially won his claim against Resorts World for negligence, assault, and wrongful imprisonment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Goel sued Resorts World for negligence, assault, battery, and wrongful imprisonment.
  2. Mr. Goel claimed $484,196.16 in damages.
  3. The court found in favor of Mr. Goel but apportioned liability against the Casino up to 80%.
  4. The Casino joined SATS as a third party.
  5. The Casino and SATS made two joint offers to settle, which Mr. Goel rejected.
  6. Mr. Goel was awarded $36,732.59.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd, Suit No 484 of 2013, [2017] SGHC 43

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit commenced against the Casino
Casino joined SATS as a third party
Casino and SATS made a joint offer to settle
Casino and SATS made a second offer to settle
Trial commenced
Trial ended
Judgment delivered
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs Allocation
    • Outcome: The court determined the allocation of costs, considering the offers to settle and the third-party proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Effect of offers to settle on costs
      • Validity of joint offer to settle by defendant and third party
      • Costs in third party proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Aggravated Damages
  3. Exemplary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Wrongful Imprisonment

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality
  • Security

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 22A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to settle
  • Costs
  • Indemnity basis
  • Third party proceedings
  • Apportionment of liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Costs
  • Offer to settle
  • Third party
  • Negligence
  • Assault
  • Wrongful imprisonment

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Offers to Settle