Goel Adesh Kumar v Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 40

Costs

The applicant, Mr Goel Adesh Kumar, filed CA/OS 12/2020 seeking to vary this court’s orders in CA/CA 21/2018 (“CA 21/2018”) pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction. The applicant submitted that the costs orders made against him in CA 21/2018 were in error. Having considered the parties’ submissions, we find that although the costs orders against the applicant in CA 21/2018 were in fact premised on two incorrect assumptions, ultimately they would not affect the basis on which the costs orders were made. We therefore dismiss the application. We now explain our reasons for doing so.

Costs

The Judge set out his decision on costs in [2017] SGHC 43. We allowed the respondent’s appeal against the Judge’s costs orders in CA/CA 127/2017 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against those orders in CA/CA 21/2018. We did not disturb the costs orders relevant to the present application. They are (see Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appeal [2018] 2 SLR 1070 (“the CA Costs Judgment”) at [38]):

Costs

The reason for these orders was the offer to settle made to the applicant by the respondent and SATS jointly on 2 July 2014 (“the First Offer”). The First Offer was for $62,000 with parties to bear their own costs. Subsequently, on 17 September 2014, the respondent and SATS made another joint offer to settle for $100,000, but with no provision for costs (“the Second Offer”). The applicant did not accept either offer, and the Suit proceeded for trial on 30 June 2015.

Costs

The costs consequences of the applicant’s rejection of the offers to settle are set out in O 22A r 9(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), which provides:

Costs

As we explained in the CA Costs Judgment, the costs orders set out at [3] above followed from the application of O 22A r 9(3) to the facts:

Costs

Following the CA Costs Judgment, the costs to be paid by the respondent to the applicant (ie, the costs at [3(a)] above) were taxed in HC/BC 59/2019 (“BC 59/2019”). On 7 February 2020, the Assistant Registrar awarded the applicant costs as follows:

Costs

The upshot of BC 59/2019 is that the costs incurred by the applicant up to the date of the First Offer were in fact $18,882.22 (the sum of the legal costs and disbursements awarded). That this sum should be included in the calculation of the “judgment” obtained by the plaintiff for the purposes of O 22A r 9(3)(b) of the Rules of Court, in relation to an “all-in” offer to settle inclusive of costs, was established by this court in NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another [2018] 2 SLR 1043 (see [25(c)(i)] and [29(a)]). As such, our earlier assumption that such costs would not exceed $16,084.26 (see [6(b)(ii)] above) turns out to be inaccurate.

Costs

On the other hand, the respondent points out that the actual judgment sum recovered by the applicant was only $36,732.59, or 80% of $45,915.74, contrary to the other assumption we made in the CA Costs Judgment (see [6(b)(ii)] above). Thus, even taking into account the costs recovered by the applicant, the judgment he obtained within the meaning of O 22A r 9(3)(b) was still significantly less than the First Offer.

Costs

Since the judgment obtained by the applicant remains less favourable than the First Offer, the foundation of our costs orders in the CA Costs Judgment is not undermined, and there is no reason to disturb those orders.

Costs

The applicant also took advantage of the situation and sought to revisit a number of submissions which had previously been considered and rejected. He argued, inter alia, that the First Offer should not be taken as a genuine offer to settle, and that the costs order in his favour at [3(a)] above should be on the basis of the High Court scale. However, these were the precise arguments which had been addressed in the CA Costs Judgment at [19]–[25]. We regard these submissions by the applicant to be an impermissible attempt to relitigate those issues.

Costs

We therefore dismiss the application. We award the respondent costs for the application fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements. There will be the usual consequential orders for payment out.