Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased)

JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date17 September 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] SGHC 178
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberDistrict Court Suit No 335 of 2009 (Registrar’s Appeal from Subordinate Courts No 89 of 2013)
Published date10 November 2014
Hearing Date12 August 2013
Plaintiff CounselN K Rajarh (M Rama Law Corporation)
Defendant CounselSusila Ganesan (Just Law LLC)
Subject MatterCivil Procedure,Offer to Settle
Citation[2013] SGHC 178
Choo Han Teck J:

The plaintiff (the respondent in this Registrar’s Appeal) was severely injured in an accident on 22 July 2006 when his motorcycle collided with a car driven by the defendant. He suffered brain damage and became permanently disabled and mentally incapable of managing his own affairs. His mother was appointed by an order of court dated 12 April 2007 to be the Committee of Persons to manage his affairs.

On 6 September 2011 the defendant (or more properly, his insurers) made an offer to settle (“OTS”) on the terms that he pays the plaintiff a global sum of $500,000 (inclusive of interim payment of $85,000) and excluding costs and disbursements. The plaintiff died on 29 March 2012. The plaintiff’s mother then applied and obtained an order of court on 12 April 2012 to be made the legal representative of the plaintiff’s estate. On 12 April 2012 the defendant’s solicitors served a notice that the OTS would be withdrawn.

The plaintiff (through his legal representative) served his acceptance of the OTS on the defendant at 9am on 13 April 2012. The defendant’s solicitors served the withdrawal of OTS at 10.15am on 13 April 2012. Although the action had been progressing at an even pace since 2011, the solicitors for the parties suddenly bolted like sprinters all because the Rules of Court provides that an OTS which did not specify a time for acceptance may be withdrawn at any time upon one day’s notice. The notice was given on 12 April 2012. The plaintiff thus realised that the terms of the OTS were more generous than an award would be after the plaintiff’s death. Hence, the plaintiff’s personal representative gave instructions to accept the OTS. Similarly, the defendant’s solicitors realised that unless withdrawn, the defendant’s insurers would be paying more than it needed to since damages for loss of amenities and medical care would be greatly reduced after the death of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an application to enter judgment on the terms of the OTS. The application was allowed and the defendant’s appeal to the District Judge was dismissed. He then appealed before this court.

An offer to settle is a procedure to encourage the settlement of disputes by means of an offer that is fair and objective. If it is and the other party accepts it, the dispute would be resolved in the near ideal circumstances and terms. If it was fair and objective (measured by the judgment of the court) and was rejected by the other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 24 July 2014
    ...of the victim. The High Court judge (‘the Judge’) answered the question in the positive (see Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi [2013] SGHC 178 (‘the Judgment’)). The Appellant appealed against the ruling of the Judge. 3 We first heard the appeal on 20 March 2014. On that occasion, we ......
  • Tanner Sheridan Wayne v NRG Engineering Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 November 2013
    ...Sheriffa Taibah bte Abdul Rahman v Lim Kim Som [1992] 1 SLR (R) 375; [1992] 2 SLR 516 (refd) Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi [2013] SGHC 178 (refd) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 22 A r 3 (2) , O 22 A r 3 (3) (consd) ;O 22 A, ......
  • Tanner Sheridan Wayne v NRG Engineering Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 November 2013
    ...accept the offer (see Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased) [2013] SGHC 178 at [4]). There is no necessity for implying an additional time period after service of Form 34, even as a matter of policy, for the self-sam......
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...representative effectively accepted an offer to settle very shortly before it was withdrawn, see Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi[2013] SGHC 178. Originating processes 8.63 The following observations were made by the High Court in Ong Kim Yeng v Forte Development Pte Ltd[2013] 1 SLR ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT