RESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA PTE. LTD. v GOEL ADESH KUMAR

RESORTS WORLD AT SENTOSA PTE. LTD. v GOEL ADESH KUMAR

The Court held that O 22A r 9(3) applied: the First Offer was a reasonable, genuine joint offer and the judgment plus Magistrate's Court scale costs did not exceed the First Offer, so indemnity costs against the plaintiff from 2 July 2014 were appropriate; separately, the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in omitting SATS as a co-defendant making third party proceedings inevitable, so the plaintiff must pay 80% of SATS's third party costs on a standard High Court scale.

Citation
[2018] SGCA 58
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd; Respondent / Appellant / Plaintiff: Goel Adesh Kumar; Third Party: SATS Security Services Pte Ltd
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
2 October 2018
Case Number
CA/CA 127/2017|CA/CA 21/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals From High Court Costs Judgment; Underlying Civil Suit / Court of Appeal Decision on Cross Appeals on Costs
Outcome
Cross-appeals resolved: Mr Goel's appeal dismissed; RWS's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Third Party Proceedings, Offers to Settle, Order 22 a R 9(3) ROC, Vicarious Liability, Costs Scale and Taxation
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Costs Torts Contract (indemnity) Civil Appeals Third Party Proceedings Offers to Settle Order 22 a R 9(3) ROC +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd

Appellant / Defendant

Goel Adesh Kumar

Respondent / Appellant / Plaintiff

SATS Security Services Pte Ltd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals From High Court Costs Judgment; Underlying Civil Suit / Court of Appeal Decision on Cross Appeals on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether O 22A r 9(3) ROC costs consequences applied when plaintiff rejected defendant's joint offers to settle
  2. 2 Whether the First Offer was a reasonable, serious and genuine offer for purposes of O 22A r 9(3) ROC
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff should bear costs of defendant's third party proceedings against a third party who was not sued by the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that O 22A r 9(3) applied: the First Offer was a reasonable, genuine joint offer and the judgment plus Magistrate's Court scale costs did not exceed the First Offer, so indemnity costs against the plaintiff from 2 July 2014 were appropriate; separately, the plaintiff had acted unreasonably in omitting SATS as a co-defendant making third party proceedings inevitable, so the plaintiff must pay 80% of SATS's third party costs on a standard High Court scale.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeals resolved: Mr Goel's appeal dismissed; RWS's appeal allowed.

Orders

  • RWS shall pay Mr Goel’s costs incurred in the Suit on a standard basis on the Magistrate’s Court scale up to 2 July 2014.
  • Mr Goel shall pay RWS’s costs incurred in the Suit on an indemnity basis on the High Court scale from 2 July 2014.