PECK WEE BOON PATRICK & Anor v LIM POH GOON & 3 Ors

[2024] SGHC 120 High Court (General Division) 8 May 2024 • HC/S 148/2022 • 15 min read

8 cases cited

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Costs Civil Procedure — Offer to settle – Basis of costs – O 22A r 9(3) Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Tan Siong Thye Delivered

Counsel (7)

FC Legal Asia LLC Firm Francis Khoo & Lim Firm Chu Hua Yi Counsel Plaintiff Foo Maw Shen Counsel Plaintiff Goh Jia Jie Counsel Plaintiff Singh Ranjit Counsel Defendant Teo Jun Wei Andre Counsel Defendant

Parties (6)

Haixia Crystal Construction Pte Ltd Defendant Haixia Crystal Development Pte Ltd Defendant Ding Siew Peng Angel Plaintiff Lim Poh Goon Defendant Lim Poh Quee Defendant Peck Wee Boon Patrick Plaintiff

Case Significance

Peck Wee Boon Patrick and another v Lim Poh Goon and others [2024] SGHC 120 is an ex tempore judgment delivered by Tan Siong Thye SJ in the General Division of the High Court on 8 May 2024, in Suit No 148 of 2022. The judgment followed the earlier decision in Peck Wee Boon Patrick and another v Lim Poh Goon and others [2024] SGHC 44, in which Tan Siong Thye SJ dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the second defendant, Lim Poh Quee, and the fourth defendant, Haixia Crystal Development Pte Ltd, and ordered costs to be agreed or taxed. After judgment was released, the defendants' counsel informed the court that the defendants had made an offer to settle to the plaintiffs before trial, which the plaintiffs did not accept. The decision addressed whether the costs awarded to the defendants should be on the standard basis or the indemnity basis, with reference to O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed).

Summary

After the General Division of the High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the second and fourth defendants in an earlier judgment and ordered costs to be agreed or taxed, the defendants' counsel informed the court that an offer to settle on a drop-hands basis had been served on the plaintiffs before trial and not accepted. The remaining issue was whether the defendants' costs should be assessed on the standard basis or the indemnity basis under Order 22A rule 9(3) of the Rules of Court. The court found that the offer to settle was a genuine and serious offer that satisfied the relevant requirements, and held that the defendants were entitled to costs on the standard basis up to the date the offer was served and on the indemnity basis from that date.

What was Peck Wee Boon Patrick v Lim Poh Goon [2024] SGHC 120 about?

It addressed the basis of costs after Tan Siong Thye SJ dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in Suit No 148 of 2022. The defendants had made an unaccepted pre-trial offer to settle, raising whether their costs should be on the standard or indemnity basis under O 22A r 9(3).

Which rule governed the offer to settle in [2024] SGHC 120?

The court considered O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) in deciding whether costs to the defendants should be on the standard or indemnity basis, following the defendants' unaccepted pre-trial offer to settle in Suit No 148 of 2022.

Cases Cited (8)

SG (1)

[2024] SGHC 44

SLR (7)

[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38 [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267 [2015] 3 SLR 267 [2018] 2 SLR 1043 [2018] 2 SLR 1070 [2018] 5 SLR 412 [2020] 2 SLR 808

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Civil Procedure — Costs

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 120)