Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World: Costs Order Dispute After Offer to Settle Rejection
In Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed an application by Mr. Goel Adesh Kumar to vary costs orders made against him in a prior appeal. The application stemmed from a claim against Resorts World for false imprisonment, assault, and battery, where Mr. Kumar had rejected settlement offers. Despite acknowledging incorrect assumptions in the original costs orders, the court found that the ultimate basis for the orders remained valid, dismissing Mr. Kumar's application and awarding costs to Resorts World.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding costs order after rejecting settlement offer. Court affirmed original costs order despite incorrect assumptions, dismissing the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Costs awarded | Won | |
| Goel Adesh Kumar | Applicant, Appellant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Narayanan Sreenivasan | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Goel Adesh Kumar filed a claim against Resorts World for false imprisonment, assault, and battery.
- Resorts World joined SATS Security Services Pte Ltd as a third party.
- The High Court found in favor of Kumar, awarding him $45,915.74 in damages.
- Kumar's aggregate claim was for $484,196.16.
- Resorts World was liable for 80% of the award, and SATS for 20%.
- Resorts World and SATS jointly made an offer to settle for $62,000 on 2 July 2014.
- Kumar rejected the offer to settle.
5. Formal Citations
- Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd, , [2020] SGCA 40
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit filed in HC/S 484/2013 | |
| First Offer to Settle made | |
| Second Offer to Settle made | |
| Trial began | |
| Liability Judgment issued in [2015] SGHC 289 | |
| Decision on costs set out in [2017] SGHC 43 | |
| CA Costs Judgment issued in [2018] 2 SLR 1070 | |
| Assistant Registrar awarded costs in HC/BC 59/2019 | |
| Court hearing | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Costs Orders
- Outcome: The court upheld the original costs orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1070
- Offer to Settle
- Outcome: The court found that the judgment obtained by the applicant was less favorable than the first offer to settle.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 2 SLR 1043
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 439
8. Remedies Sought
- Variation of costs orders
9. Cause of Actions
- False Imprisonment
- Assault
- Battery
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1070 | Singapore | Cited for the costs orders made in the case, which are the subject of the present application. |
| NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs incurred by the plaintiff up to the date of the offer should be included in the calculation of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff for the purposes of Order 22A rule 9(3)(b) of the Rules of Court, in relation to an all-in offer to settle inclusive of costs. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu Leng | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once it was shown that the offer was less than the judgment sum no matter how slightly, Order 22A rule 9(3) did not apply. |
| Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 206 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should revisit its decision because its very foundation has been destroyed, such that the future performance of the court order would lead to injustice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 22A r 9(3) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed), s 39(1)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Costs orders
- Offer to settle
- Indemnity basis
- Standard basis
- Judgment sum
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Offer to settle
- Civil procedure
- Singapore
- Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Costs | 85 |
| Offer to Settle | 80 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Settlement Offers