Chia Kim Huay (litigation representative of the estate of Chua Chye Hee, deceased) v Saw Shu Mawa Min Min and another
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 27 August 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 172 |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 172 |
Hearing Date | 26 June 2012,26 March 2012,30 April 2012 |
Published date | 29 August 2012 |
Docket Number | Suit No 704 of 2010/V (Summons No 5809 of 2011/Z and Summons No 135 of 2012/Q) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Paul Yap Tai San (Vision Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Niru Pillai (Global Law Alliance LLC) |
Subject Matter | Civil procedure,offer to settle,service,Contract,formation,acceptance,offer,termination |
The purpose of the offer to settle mechanism prescribed under Order 22A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), which is derived from rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Ontario RRO 1990, Reg 194, is to “encourage termination of litigation by the agreement of the parties — more speedily and less expensively than by judgment of the court at the end of the trial”:
This matter raises the interesting question of whether and, if so, to what extent, do ordinary contractual principles of offer and acceptance apply to the statutory regime of offers to settle under Order 22A. The theoretical answer to the question must be that ordinary contractual principles apply to the extent that they are not inconsistent with what the Rules of Court expressly provide. However, as will be seen in the present case, the application of theory to practice is not as straightforward as it seems.
The facts Background On 15 April 2009, Chua Chye Hee (“the Plaintiff”) was involved in a motor accident with Saw Shu Mawa Min Min (“the 1
On 15 September 2010, the Plaintiff commenced Suit No 704 of 2010 against both the 1
After determining the issue of liability, the 2
On 9 March 2011, the Defendant made an offer to settle under Order 22A to the Plaintiff at $352,316.08, representing the estimated loss of the Plaintiff’s earnings calculated based on a 3 year multiplier.
The Plaintiff’s first offer to settleOn 21 March 2011, the Plaintiff made an offer to settle under Order 22A to the Defendant at the sum of $594,954.60, representing the estimated loss of his earnings calculated based on a higher multiplier of 5.75 years. The Plaintiff also gave the Defendant full access to his medical records. On 3 May 2011, the Defendant’s medical expert conducted an independent examination of the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s second offer to settleOn 17 June 2011, based on the medical examination and their first offer to settle, the Defendant made a second offer to settle under Order 22A to the Plaintiff at $435,000.00. The Defendant wrote a letter to the Plaintiff in Form 33, stating:
OFFER TO SETTLE The Defendants offer to settle the proceedings under Order 22A by paying the Plaintiff the following:
Dated this 17
th day of June 2011
[Signed]
The figure of $435,000.00 is an intermediate figure between the Defendant’s first offer to settle at $352,316.08; and the Plaintiff’s first offer to settle at $594,954.60. Attached to this second offer to settle is another letter which set out the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The dispute in the present case is whether or not this second offer to settle from the Defendant dated 17 June 2011 (“the Defendant’s second offer to settle”) had been validly accepted by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s second offer to settleOn 23 August 2011, the Plaintiff made a second offer to settle to the Defendant at $600,000, inclusive of all interim payments. However, the Defendant did not accept this offer to settle and nothing in this case turns on this second offer to settle made by the Plaintiff.
In summary, the Plaintiff and the Defendant each made two offers to settle pursuant to Order 22A. However, as will be seen, this case turns solely upon whether the Defendant’s second offer to settle was validly accepted.
The Plaintiff’s 1 On 27 August 2011, which was a Saturday, the Plaintiff’s counsel accepted the Defendant’s second offer to settle via two modes:
The 1
PLAINTIFF’S ACCEPTANCE OF DEFENDANTS’ OFFER TO SETTLE The Plaintiff accepts the Defendants’ Offer to Settle dated the 17th day of June 2011 on the terms stated therein.
Dated this 27th August 2011[Signed]
Mr Chua Chean Veen, the Senior Executive Claims of the Defendant, stated in his affidavit that he was advised by his counsel that:
The parties seemed to dispute the exact timing when the Defendant’s counsel received the 2
This document served on us at
2.09 pm on31/8/11 .[Signed]
GLOBAL LAW ALLIANCE LLC
As the authenticity of this document or the stamp therein was not disputed, I therefore found that the earliest time that Defendant’s counsel had been physically served the 2
At 11.06 am on 29 August 2011, the Plaintiff passed away. Although the Plaintiff’s counsel had posted the 2
After the Plaintiff passed away, both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s counsel wrote to each other disputing whether or not the Plaintiff had validly accepted the Defendant’s second offer to settle
On 8 December 2011, on the instructions of Chia Kim Huay, the litigation representative of the estate of the Plaintiff (hereinafter also referred to as the “Plaintiff” where the context applies), the Plaintiff’s counsel served another acceptance in Form 35 (“the 3
On 23 December 2011, the Plaintiff filed Summons No 5809 of 2011 praying for judgment to be entered for the Plaintiff on the terms of the Defendant’s second offer to settle, which the Plaintiff contended had been validly accepted. In response, the Defendant filed Summons No 135 of 2012 on 10 January 2012 seeking the following declaratory relief:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chia Kim Huay v Saw Shu Mawa Min Min
...Kim Huay (litigation representative of the estate of Chua Chye Hee, deceased) Plaintiff and Saw Shu Mawa Min Min and another Defendant [2012] SGHC 172 Chan Seng Onn J Suit No 704 of 2010 (Summonses Nos 5809 of 2011 and 135 of 2012) High Court Civil Procedure—Offer to settle—Application of c......