Ram Das v N P v SIA Engineering Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 19 March 2015
• Date: 19 March 2015
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 32 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ram Das V N P

Plaintiff

and

SIA Engineering Co Ltd

Defendant

[2015] SGHC 74

Hoo Sheau Peng JC

District Court Appeal No 32 of 2014

High Court

Civil Procedure—Offer to settle—Employee suing employer for damages for personal injuries sustained at work—Trial bifurcated with issue of liability heard first—Offer by employer to settle liability at 50%—Employer found not liable for employee's injuries at first instance—Employer found 50% liable on appeal—Whether offer to settle was valid and effective—Whether consequences of indemnity costs pursuant to offer to settle applied to work done for appeal—Whether court should exercise its discretion not to order indemnity costs against employee—Order 22 A r 9 (3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

The appellant, Ram Das VNP (‘Ram Das’), was an employee of the respondent, SIA Engineering Co Ltd (‘SIA’). He sustained an injury at work and sued SIA for damages for the injuries suffered. The trial was bifurcated, with the issue of liability being heard first. After the first day of the trial on liability, SIA offered to pay Ram Das 50% of the damages to be assessed in order to settle the issue of liability. The Ram Das issued a counter-offer on the issue of liability, requiring SIA to pay him 80% of the damages to be agreed or assessed. Neither offer was accepted.

The trial judge found SIA not liable for the injuries sustained by Ram Das. On appeal, the High Court held that SIA was liable for 50% of the injury, loss and damage sustained by Ram Das (‘the High Court's decision on liability’). The matter was sent back to the trial judge for the assessment of damages. After the first day of the hearing on the assessment of damages, the parties came to a settlement on the issue of quantum.

The parties went back before the trial judge on the matter of costs for the proceedings from the date of service of SIA's offer to settle to the date of the High Court's decision on liability. SIA argued that it was entitled to indemnity costs under O 22 A r 9 (3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (‘ROC’) for this period as the judgment on liability obtained by Ram Das on appeal was not more favourable than the terms of SIA's offer to settle. Ram Das submitted that an offer to settle on the issue of liability only was not apt to attract the cost consequences under O 22 A r 9 (3) as the Court of Appeal in The Endurance 1[1998] 3 SLR (R) 970 had stated that an offer to settle at a percentage of an unliquidated sum could not be said to be a serious and genuine offer to settle. Ram Das also argued that the cost consequences could not extend to the work done for the appeal on the issue of liability to the High Court.

The trial judge found that SIA's offer to settle was valid and effective under O 22 A and attracted the cost consequences set out under O 22 A r 9 (3) of the ROC. The trial judge also held that these cost consequences under O 22 A r 9 (3) extended to the work done for the appeal and granted SIA costs on an indemnity basis from the date of SIA's offer to settle to the date of the High Court's decision on liability. Ram Das appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The purpose of the offer to settle regime under O 22 A of the ROC was to encourage the expeditious resolution of disputes. Taking a purposive approach mandated by s 9 A of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed), the term ‘claim’ under O 22 A r 1 should be interpreted broadly to include any question of liability and/or damages and/or other relief which a court might be required to determine: at [27] to [31] and [41] .

(2) Offers to settle under O 22 A did not apply only to monetary claims, but could be made for non-monetary claims as well. There was no reason to restrict the validity of offers to settle to require a monetary value, even if the claim was for an unliquidated sum, when the action was bifurcated. This also accorded with the position in other jurisdictions: at [34] , [36] , [42] , [43] and [46] .

(3) The Endurance 1 stood for the proposition that in order for offers to settle to attract the cost consequences under O 22 A r 9 of the ROC, the offer should be a serious and genuine one, and that in a trial on both liability and assessment of damages, an offer to settle a claim for an unliquidated sum at a percentage was not a serious and genuine one. However, The Endurance 1 did not stand for the proposition that an offer on liability only could never be said to be a serious and genuine offer to settle. On the facts of The Endurance 1, the offers to settle could not be said to be serious and genuine offers that would induce or facilitate settlement. Also, the action in The Endurance 1 was not bifurcated into separate proceedings for liability and assessment of damages, and the offers in that case, if accepted, would have only disposed of a part of the trial. It would be incongruous to allow such offers which dealt only with liability to be seen as serious and genuine: at [26] , [53] and [58] .

(4) Where trials were bifurcated into issues of liability and damages, it accorded with the purpose of the offer to settle regime to allow parties to settle on the basis of liability only, with damages to be later assessed. At the time SIA issued its offer to settle, there were separate proceedings concerned solely with the issue of liability. If Ram Das had accepted SIA's offer to settle, he would have reached the same substantive outcome with time and costs savings, as the proceedings on the issue of liability would have been rendered unnecessary. Recognising the validity of SIA's offer to settle under O 22 A in these circumstances accorded with the purpose and policy of the offer to settle regime. SIA's offer to settle was thus valid and capable of attracting the cost consequences under O 22 A r 9 (3): at [29] , [57] , [59] and [61] .

(5) A plain reading of O 22 A r 9 (4) suggested that if the plaintiff obtained a less favourable judgment at first instance, the cost consequences therein would apply to any subsequent proceedings, inclusive of the appeal. Also, the phrase ‘disposal of the claim’ has been interpreted by the Court of Appeal to mean final disposal of the claim where there was an appeal or where the time limit for appealing a claim had expired. Where an offer to settle remained open for acceptance even after judgment at first instance had been rendered, a non-accepting party could thus be penalised with indemnity costs for the work done in the appeal since he was at all times able to accept the offer, but refused to do so: at [71] to [73] .

(6) Ram Das did not obtain a more favourable judgment than the terms of SIA's offer to settle either at first instance or on appeal. The pre-conditions under O 22 A r 9 (3) were satisfied, and O 22 A r 9 (3) thus applied straightforwardly, entitling SIA to costs on the indemnity basis from the date its offer was served on Ram Das, which would include the work done for the appeal to the High Court on the issue of liability: at [63] , [64] , [69] , [70] and [74] .

(7) The trial judge was correct in finding that SIA's offer was a serious, genuine and reasonable offer and that there was no reason which justified the court exercising its discretion to depart from the prima facie position under O 22 A r 9 (3): at [80] .

Alagamalai s/o Veerasamy v Chan Liau Chuan [1994] SGHC 267 (folld)

Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP [2010] 4 SLR 137 (refd)

CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd [2009] 2 SLR (R) 20; [2009] 2 SLR 20 (folld)

Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd v Computer Interface (S) Pte Ltd (No 2) [2004] SGCA 28 (folld)

Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 70 (refd)

Data General (Canada) Ltd v Molnar Systems Group Inc (1991) 85 DLR (4 th) 392 (refd)

Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe [2001] SGHC 19 (folld)

Endurance 1, The [1998] 3 SLR (R) 970; [1999] 1 SLR 661 (distd)

Hunger Project v Council on Mind Abuse (C.O.M.A.) Inc et al (1995) 121 DLR (4 th) 734 (folld)

LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd [2004] 1 SLR (R) 134; [2004] 1 SLR 134 (folld)

Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 49 (refd)

Mahoney v Curwood Transport Ltd [1998] NJ No 311 (folld)

Man B&W Diesel SE Asia Pte Ltd v PT Bumi International Tankers [2004] 3 SLR (R) 267; [2004] 3 SLR 267 (folld)

Mercer v Gollop [2000] NJ No 98 (refd)

Moore v Woodforth (No 2) [2003] NSWCA 46 (refd)

Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation (S) Ltd [2001] SGHC 328 (refd)

Niagara Structural Steel (St Catharines) Ltd v WD Laflamme Ltd [1987] OJNo 2239 (refd)

Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 1285, HC (refd)

Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd [2015] 2 SLR 470, CA (refd)

Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co Ltd [2012] SGDC 8 (refd)

Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2001] 1 SLR (R) 38; [2001] 1 SLR 532 (folld)

Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu Leng [2001] 3 SLR (R) 439; [2001] 4 SLR 593 (folld)

South Sydney Council v Morris (No 3) [2001] NSWCA 200 (refd)

Tan Shwu Leng v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2001] SGHC 51 (refd)

Thomas William Vale v Timothy David Eggins (No 2) [2007] NSWCA 12 (refd)

Webster v BCR Construction [2012] OJ No 6672 (refd)

Whitehouse Properties Pty Ltd v Bond Brewing (NSW) Ltd (1992) 28 NSWLR 17 (refd)

Wyno Marine Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Cheng [1998] SGHC 340 (folld)

Xu Ren Li v Nakano Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2011] SGDC 159 (refd)

Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) ss 9 A, 9 A (1)

Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 209

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 22 A r 1, O 22 A r 9 (3) (consd) ;O 1 r 3, O 22 A r 9 (1) , O 22 A r 9 (2) , O 22 A r 9 (4) (a) , O 22 A r 9 (5) , O 22 A r 12

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Rules of the Supreme Court, SNL 1986, c 42, Sched D (Can) r 20 A

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 22 r 2, Pt 52

Uniform...