Peck Wee Boon v Lim Poh Goon: Costs Allocation After Dismissal of Claims

In Peck Wee Boon Patrick and Ding Siew Peng Angel v Lim Poh Goon, Lim Poh Quee, Haixia Crystal Construction Pte Ltd, and Haixia Crystal Development Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the second and fourth defendants. The court considered an offer to settle made by the defendants before trial, which the plaintiffs did not accept. The court determined that the defendants were entitled to costs on a standard basis up to the date of the offer to settle and on an indemnity basis from that date, as the offer was genuine, serious, and more favorable than the judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

The defendants are entitled to costs on the standard basis up to the date the offer to settle was served, and to costs on the indemnity basis from that date.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addresses costs after dismissing claims, determining whether an offer to settle entitles defendants to indemnity costs. The court found in favor of the defendants.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Peck Wee Boon PatrickPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Ding Siew Peng AngelPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Lim Poh GoonDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedWon
Lim Poh QueeDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedWon
Haixia Crystal Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedWon
Haixia Crystal Development Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Foo Maw ShenFC Legal Asia LLC
Chu Hua YiFC Legal Asia LLC
Goh Jia JieFC Legal Asia LLC
Singh RanjitFrancis Khoo & Lim
Teo Jun Wei AndreFrancis Khoo & Lim

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants.
  2. Defendants made an offer to settle to the plaintiffs before the commencement of the trial.
  3. The offer to settle was not accepted by the plaintiffs.
  4. The plaintiffs' claims against the second and fourth defendants were dismissed.
  5. The offer to settle was a 'drop-hands' offer.
  6. The offer to settle was served more than a year after the plaintiffs commenced the action.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Peck Wee Boon Patrick and another v Lim Poh Goon and others, Suit No 148 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 120
  2. Peck Wee Boon Patrick and another v Lim Poh Goon and others, , [2024] SGHC 44

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed
Offer to settle served by defendants
Judgment issued dismissing plaintiffs’ claims
Plaintiffs’ counsel disagreed that the defendants are entitled to costs on an indemnity basis from the date of the offer to settle
Judgment Date
Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs
    • Outcome: The defendants are entitled to costs on the standard basis up to the date the offer to settle was served, and to costs on the indemnity basis from that date.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2024] SGHC 44
  2. Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court determined that the offer to settle was valid, genuine, and serious.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. No remedies sought

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Peck Wee Boon Patrick and another v Lim Poh Goon and othersHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 44SingaporeThe judgment in this case sets out the facts of the underlying dispute.
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1043SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer to settle must continue to be valid up to the issuance of the judgment of the first instance court.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd v PT Bumi International TankersCourt of AppealYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267SingaporeCited for the principle that the disposal of the claim refers to the final disposal of the claim on appeal if an appeal is filed.
Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 267SingaporeCited for the principle that the disposal of the claim refers to the final disposal of the claim on appeal if an appeal is filed.
Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle AssociationCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 808SingaporeDiscussed the situation where an offer to settle required discontinuance of a concluded action.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3563 v Wintree Investment Pte Ltd and others (Greatearth Corp Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 412SingaporeCited for the principle that a complete dismissal of claims is not more favorable than a drop-hands offer.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn BhdCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer to settle should be a serious and genuine offer.
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1070SingaporeCited for the principle that an offer to settle should not be made just to entail the payment of costs on an indemnity basis.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of CourtSingapore
Order 22A r 3(5) of the Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Offer to settle
  • Indemnity costs
  • Standard costs
  • Drop-hands offer
  • Validity requirement
  • Favourability requirement

15.2 Keywords

  • Costs
  • Offer to settle
  • Indemnity basis
  • Standard basis
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure95
Costs90
Offer to Settle90
Judgments and Orders60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Settlement