GTMS Construction v Ser Kim Koi: Costs Allocation in Construction Dispute
This is a supplemental judgment by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Suit No 50 of 2014, delivered on 10 February 2021 by Tan Siong Thye J, regarding the allocation of costs in the case of GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi, with Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and CSYA Pte Ltd as third parties. The court addressed the plaintiff's inquiry about interest on the judgment sum and considered submissions on costs. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs on a standard basis from 13 January 2014 until the trial's commencement on 8 November 2018, and on an indemnity basis thereafter. The defendant was also ordered to pay the third parties costs on a standard basis from 29 January 2014 until 6 March 2017, and on an indemnity basis thereafter.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Costs awarded to Plaintiff and Third Parties, with standard basis until specific dates, then indemnity basis.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Supplemental Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Supplemental judgment on costs allocation in a construction dispute. The court orders costs on a standard basis until trial commencement, then indemnity basis due to unreasonable conduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTMS Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant in counterclaim | Corporation | Costs awarded | Won | Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam, Mendel Yap |
| Ser Kim Koi | Defendant, Plaintiff in counterclaim | Individual | Costs to be paid | Lost | Chong Chi Chuin Christopher, Josh Samuel Tan Wensu, Chen Zhihui, Calvin Lee |
| Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) | Third Party, Third Parties in counterclaim | Individual | Costs awarded | Won | Thio Shen Yi SC, Monisha Cheong, Md Noor E Adnaan, Uday Duggal |
| CSYA Pte Ltd | Third Party, Third Parties in counterclaim | Corporation | Costs awarded | Won | Thio Shen Yi SC, Monisha Cheong, Md Noor E Adnaan, Uday Duggal |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam | Ling Das & Partners |
| Mendel Yap | Ling Das & Partners |
| Chong Chi Chuin Christopher | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Josh Samuel Tan Wensu | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Chen Zhihui | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Calvin Lee | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Thio Shen Yi SC | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Monisha Cheong | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Md Noor E Adnaan | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Uday Duggal | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff inquired whether the judgment sum included interest, which was inadvertently omitted.
- The defendant made multiple false allegations of defects, conducting the case improperly.
- The defendant raised allegations at trial not contained in pleadings or AEICs.
- The defendant pursued trivial claims, causing the plaintiff to expend inordinate resources.
- The defendant was dishonest and lied in giving evidence.
- The defendant made unmeritorious allegations of fraud against the plaintiff.
- The defendant unreasonably rejected the third parties' offers to mediate.
- The defendant unreasonably persisted in making unmeritorious conspiracy claims against the third parties.
- The defendant recklessly and dishonestly put forward an evolving set of conjured allegations.
- The defendant was informed that the second third party should not be joined to the proceedings.
5. Formal Citations
- GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi, Suit No 50 of 2014, [2021] SGHC 33
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Writ filed | |
| Third party notice issued | |
| Third parties made open offer to settle | |
| Deadline for defendant to accept open offer to settle | |
| Trial commenced | |
| Third parties offered to mediate | |
| Third parties offered to mediate | |
| Third parties made Calderbank letter offer | |
| Deadline for defendant to accept Calderbank letter offer | |
| Judgment sum awarded to plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff inquired about interest on judgment sum | |
| Hearing fixed for oral submissions on costs | |
| Supplemental judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Allocation of Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs on a standard basis from 13 January 2014 up until 8 November 2018, with costs payable on an indemnity basis thereafter. The court further ordered the defendant to pay the third parties costs on a standard basis from 29 January 2014 up until 6 March 2017, with costs payable on an indemnity basis thereafter.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Standard basis of costs
- Indemnity basis of costs
- Offers to settle
- Unreasonable conduct
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 9
- [2016] 5 SLR 103
- [2004] 3 SLR(R) 365
- [2014] 2 SLR 1285
- [1976] Fam 93
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 230
- [2020] SGHC 53
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 439
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155
8. Remedies Sought
- Indemnity costs
- Costs on a standard basis
- Certificate of Three Counsel
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Construction Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTMS Construction Pte Ltd v Ser Kim Koi (Chan Sau Yan (formerly trading as Chan Sau Yan Associates) and another, third parties) | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 9 | Singapore | Refers to the original judgment where the plaintiff was awarded $1,103,915.48, which this supplemental judgment addresses regarding interest and costs. |
| Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 103 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on awarding indemnity costs, emphasizing that it is the exception rather than the norm and requires justification based on the unreasonableness of the party's conduct. |
| SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited) v Koh Swee Ann | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Cited regarding the form and obligatory use of the prescribed form for offers to settle under Order 22A Rule 1 of the Rules of Court. |
| Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1285 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the development and effect of Calderbank letters as an extra-statutory inducement for parties to settle through the court's discretionary powers to order costs. |
| Calderbank v Calderbank | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1976] Fam 93 | England and Wales | Cited as the origin of the practice of writing Calderbank letters, which are offers made 'without prejudice save as to costs'. |
| Colliers International (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Senkee Logistics Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 230 | Singapore | Cited by the defendant for the proposition that an offer to settle cannot be qualified as a non-admission of liability, but the court expressed doubt as to whether this position is correct. |
| Goh Kok Liang v GYP Properties Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 53 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that there is no reason why an offer to settle cannot be made without an admission of liability, disagreeing with the position in Colliers International (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Senkee Logistics Pte Ltd. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu Leng | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 439 | Singapore | Cited for the objective of Order 22A, which is to spur parties to bring litigation to an expeditious end without judgment and thus to save costs and judicial time. |
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 155 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Certificate of Three Counsel should only be granted where the use of more than two solicitors is reasonable, having regard to Appendix 1 to Order 59. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 59 rr 27(1)(a) and 27(3) of the ROC |
| Order 59 r 5 of the ROC |
| Order 59 r 19(1) of the ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Indemnity costs
- Standard basis
- Offers to settle
- Calderbank letter
- Unreasonable conduct
- Speculative claims
- Third party notice
- Certificate of Three Counsel
15.2 Keywords
- Costs
- Indemnity costs
- Standard basis
- Construction dispute
- Singapore
- Rules of Court
- Offers to settle
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Construction Dispute
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Law
- Costs