Goh Kok Liang v GYP Properties Ltd: Offer to Settle & Cost Claims

In Originating Summons No 827 of 2019, Mr. Goh Kok Liang, the plaintiff, sought declarations against GYP Properties Limited and Singapore River Explorer Pte Ltd regarding costs in a prior suit. The High Court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed Goh's application, finding that his offer to settle in the prior suit included the issue of costs. The court ordered Goh to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Goh Kok Liang's claim for costs after GYP Properties Ltd accepted his offer to settle was dismissed. The court interpreted the offer as a full settlement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Goh Kok LiangPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost
GYP Properties LimitedDefendantCorporationCosts awardedWon
Singapore River Explorer Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCosts awardedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Darren Ng Zhen QiangTan Kok Quan Partnership
Ng Ka Luon EddeeTan Kok Quan Partnership
Loh WeijieTan Kok Quan Partnership
LeonardTan Kok Quan Partnership
Toh Zhen TeckTan Kok Quan Partnership
JeremyTan Kok Quan Partnership
Ng Lip ChihNLC Law Asia LLC
Rezvana Fairouse d/o MazhardeenNLC Law Asia LLC
Jennifer Sia Pei RuNLC Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

  1. Goh was a defendant in a previous action brought by GYP and SRE.
  2. GYP and SRE accepted an offer to settle made by Goh in the previous action.
  3. Goh claimed his offer to settle did not settle his claim for costs.
  4. The court interpreted Goh's offer to settle as a full settlement of all claims, including costs.
  5. Goh sought declarations that he was entitled to pursue a claim for costs.
  6. GYP and SRE argued that Goh's offer was a full and final settlement of all claims, including costs.
  7. Goh applied for leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goh Kok Liang v GYP Properties Ltd and another, Originating Summons No 827 of 2019 and Summons No 450 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 53

6. Timeline

DateEvent
GYP and Leisure Empire Pte Ltd entered into a joint venture agreement
GYP, LE and the URA entered into a Licence Agreement
GYP and LE incorporated SRE
SRE terminated the Service Agreement
SRE ceased to operate the river taxis
GYP and SRE commenced S1164 against Goh and LE
GYP and SRE obtained judgment in default of defence against LE
Goh’s OTS was dated
Claims against Goh were tried
Closing submissions were heard
GYP and SRE served an Acceptance of the OTS on Goh
Goh served a Notice of Withdrawal of the OTS on GYP and SRE
GYP and SRE served a second Acceptance of the OTS on Goh
Parties were heard
Court decided that GYP and SRE had validly accepted the OTS
Originating Summons No 827 of 2019 was filed
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date
Summons No 450 of 2020 was filed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court held that the offer to settle included the issue of costs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of settlement
      • Inclusion of costs
  2. Validity of Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court found that it was no longer open to GYP and SRE to challenge the validity of the OTS.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Admission of liability
      • Compliance with Order 22A
  3. Leave to Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed Goh's application for leave to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prima facie case of error
      • Question of general principle

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declarations
  2. Costs on an indemnity basis
  3. Interest on costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim for Costs

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Colliers International (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Senkee Logistics Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 230SingaporeCited regarding the requirements of an offer to settle under Order 22A, specifically whether it can be qualified as a non-admission of liability.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherUnknownYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the principles on granting leave to appeal.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengUnknownYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeCited for the objective of Order 22A to bring litigation to an expeditious end.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 470SingaporeCited regarding the interpretation of an offer to settle under a regime like Order 22A.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 22A r 1 ROCSingapore
O 22A r 3(2) ROCSingapore
O 22A r 4 ROCSingapore
O 22A r 9 ROCSingapore
O 22A r 9(2)(b) ROCSingapore
O 22A r 9(5) ROCSingapore
O 22A r 9(1) ROCSingapore
O 22A r 9(3) ROCSingapore
O 22A r 10 ROCSingapore
O 22A r 10(b) ROCSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to settle
  • Costs
  • Full and final settlement
  • Without prejudice save as to costs
  • Leave to appeal
  • Prima facie case of error
  • Question of general principle

15.2 Keywords

  • offer to settle
  • costs
  • settlement
  • civil procedure
  • contract law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Offer to Settle90
Costs80
Civil Practice75
Contract Law60
Appeal40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Settlements
  • Costs