Resorts World at Sentosa v Goel Adesh Kumar: Costs Allocation in Third-Party Proceedings and Offer to Settle

The Court of Appeal heard cross-appeals by Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (RWS) and Mr. Goel Adesh Kumar regarding the High Court's decision on costs in Suit No. 484 of 2013, which involved RWS, Mr. Goel, and SATS Security Services Pte Ltd. The appeals concerned the allocation of costs for third-party proceedings and the application of Order 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court regarding offers to settle. The Court dismissed Mr. Goel's appeal and allowed RWS's appeal, modifying the cost orders to reflect that Mr. Goel should bear 80% of SATS's costs in the third-party proceedings.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Mr Goel’s Appeal dismissed and RWS’s Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding costs allocation in a suit involving Resorts World, Goel Adesh Kumar, and SATS Security, focusing on third-party proceedings and offers to settle.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte LtdAppellant, RespondentCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
Goel Adesh KumarRespondent, Appellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
SATS SECURITY SERVICES PTE LTDThird PartyCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudge of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJudge of AppealNo
Steven ChongJudge of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Narayanan SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Shankar s/o Angammah SevasamyStraits Law Practice LLC
Ow Yan Rong DerekStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Goel visited the Casino on the night of 21 April 2012.
  2. A quarrel erupted between Mr. Goel and two other patrons.
  3. Mr. Goel was escorted by security staff into a separate room.
  4. Mr. Goel was detained for several hours before being escorted out.
  5. Mr. Goel sustained injuries to his shoulder during the Incident.
  6. Mr. Goel commenced the Suit against RWS on 29 May 2013.
  7. RWS joined SATS as a third party to the Suit on 19 November 2013.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appeal, , [2018] SGCA 58
  2. , Civil Appeal No 127 of 2017, Civil Appeal No 127 of 2017
  3. , Civil Appeal No 21 of 2018, Civil Appeal No 21 of 2018
  4. , Suit No 484 of 2013, Suit No 484 of 2013

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Goel visited the Casino.
Incident occurred at the Casino.
RWS and SATS entered into a letter of agreement.
Mr. Goel commenced the Suit against RWS.
RWS joined SATS as a third party to the Suit.
RWS and SATS made the First Offer to settle.
RWS and SATS made the Second Offer.
Mr. Goel quantified his claim.
Mr. Goel filed Civil Appeal No 215 of 2015.
SATS filed Court of Appeal Summons No 329 of 2015.
SUM 329 granted.
Court dismissed the appeal.
Judge issued the Costs Judgment.
Judge granted RWS leave to appeal.
RWS filed its Notice of Appeal.
Mr. Goel filed Summons No 4600 of 2017.
Mr. Goel filed Court of Appeal Originating Summons No 24 of 2017.
Hearing fixed for both RWS’s Appeal and OS 24.
Mr. Goel filed his Notice of Appeal.
Hearing of the appeals.
Full grounds provided.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs Allocation in Third-Party Proceedings
    • Outcome: The Court held that Mr. Goel should bear 80% of SATS's costs incurred in the Third Party Proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Application of Order 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court
    • Outcome: The Court applied the general costs consequences provided for under O 22A r 9(3).
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Reasonableness of Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The Court found that the First Offer was a reasonable, serious and genuine offer to settle for the purposes of O 22A of the ROC.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for pain and suffering
  2. Loss of amenities
  3. Loss of liberty
  4. Medical and transport costs
  5. Loss of pre-trial income
  6. Loss of Casino membership
  7. Loss of credit in Genting Rewards Gold Card
  8. Aggravated and exemplary damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Wrongful Imprisonment
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality
  • Security

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 56SingaporeApplied and considered various aspects of this Court's recent decision regarding offers to settle.
Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (SATS Security Services Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtNo[2017] SGHC 43SingaporeAppeal arose out of the judgment on costs issued by the High Court judge in Suit No 484 of 2013.
RBG Resources plc (in liquidation) v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise and OthersHigh CourtYes[2004] SGHC 167SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer is not deemed to have been withdrawn even though RWS and SATS subsequently made the Second Offer.
LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd (judgment on costs)N/AYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 134SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer is not deemed to have been withdrawn even though RWS and SATS subsequently made the Second Offer.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appealN/AYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer remains open for acceptance any time before the final disposal of the Suit on appeal.
Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd (SATS Security Services Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtNo[2015] SGHC 289SingaporeFollowing the trial of the Suit, the Judge found in favour of Mr Goel and awarded him S$45,915.74 in damages, which was a fraction of his claim amount.
Cheong Ghim Fah and another v Murugian s/o RangsamyN/AYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 193SingaporeCited regarding the factual prism existing when the proceedings were initiated.
The Endurance IN/AYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 970SingaporeCited for the principle that the element of compromise should be present in an offer to settle.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn BhdN/ANo[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38SingaporeCited for the principle that the offer to settle should be a serious and genuine offer and not just to entail the payment of costs on an indemnity basis.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengN/AYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the principle that the scheme of things under O 22A is verily to encourage the plaintiffs to be realistic in their assessment of what they are entitled to.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdN/AYes[2015] 2 SLR 470SingaporeCited for the principle that the scheme of things under O 22A is verily to encourage the plaintiffs to be realistic in their assessment of what they are entitled to.
Telemedia Pacific Group Ltd v Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA (Yeh Mao-Yuan, third party)High CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 1019SingaporeThe principles governing when a plaintiff may be made to bear the costs of third party proceedings were recently canvassed in some detail in this decision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 22A r 9(3) of the ROC
O 22A r 3(5) of the ROC
O 59 r 27(5) of the ROC
para 1 of Part IV of Appendix 2 to O 59 of the ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to settle
  • Third party proceedings
  • Costs
  • Indemnity basis
  • Standard basis
  • Rules of Court
  • Vicarious liability
  • Tortious acts
  • Reasonable offer
  • Genuine offer

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • appeal
  • offer to settle
  • third party
  • rules of court
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs90
Third party proceedings80
Civil Procedure75
Civil Practice75
Offer to Settle70
Arbitration20
Contract Law10
Torts10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Offer to Settle
  • Third Party Proceedings