Printing costs were cut because the defendants did not need three trial bundles

[1] Both parties attempted to settle the action multiple times prior to the commencement of the trial. The first defendant first offered a refund of his delivery fees as a gesture of goodwill on 9 May 2020, three days after the claimant developed the fistula. He then made another offer to settle the claim on 3 September 2021. Unfortunately, this was not accepted by the claimant. In end 2021, the parties arranged to mediate but this was put “on hold” by the defendants in February 2022 because of ongoing investigations by the Singapore Medical Council. No progress was made after that. On 4 December 2024, two months before the trial commenced, the claimant made an offer to the defendants. The defendants counter-proposed a figure on 13 January 2025. One week later, the claimant made a revised offer to the defendants. This was rejected by the defendants three days later, and the trial began more than a week after that.

[5] It seems to me that both parties had made efforts to reach an amicable resolution, but their respective ideas of what a reasonable sum should be to settle amicably were just too far apart. The claim was neither complicated nor complex. The documents filed were not voluminous. In Chia Soo Kiang, the claimant refused the defendants’ offer to settle and made no counteroffer. He also filed affidavits without leave and made major amendments to his claim a week before the trial commenced. The trial took eight full days and two half days, and the defendants had to pay for the transport and accommodation of their witnesses from overseas. Chia Soo Kiang can be distinguished from the present case, where the claimant had made efforts to mediate as well as offers to the defendants to settle the matter thereafter.

[7] The claimant does not dispute many of the disbursements sought by the defendants, including $16,742.59 for SUM 209 and other expenses, as well as $44,145 for the fees paid to the defendants’ expert witnesses. However, she disputes the remaining $21,539.49 sought by the defendants. I accept that since the coloured pages were interspersed throughout voluminous documents, it was unfeasible for the defendants’ counsel to selectively print black and white pages in monochrome and pages with exhibits and mark-ups in colour. However, there was no need for them to print three trial bundles as the claimant had printed the bundles for the court and the witnesses. I fix the reasonable disbursements for printing two bundles and miscellaneous expenses at $10,900 (including GST). Therefore, the total sum for disbursements is fixed at $71,787.59.