[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The woman who sued PUB for $ 5 million after falling into a sewer and accepted a confidential settlement offer on the fourth day of trial will have to pay total legal costs of $ 30,000 to the national water agency.
On Monday (December 7), the Supreme Court awarded $ 40,000 costs to Madam Chan Hui Peng, 47, for legal work performed from the day she filed the lawsuit in 2018 to the day PUB made the offer. agreed on November 10 this year.
On the other hand, Judicial Commissioner Andre Maniam awarded PUB costs of $ 70,000, which include $ 48,000 for three days of trial and $ 22,000 for two amendments Madam Chan made to her claim.
The CPA filed a lawsuit against PUB on October 15, 2018, claiming damages for injuries, including a fractured ankle and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which she allegedly suffered as a result of the accident on Simon Road, near Kovan. , on December 1, 2015.
On October 5 of this year, his claim was amended to include his recent diagnosis of schizophrenia as one of the injuries.
READ ALSO: Questionable work, beautify diseases? Woman suing PUB for $ 5 million gives up after lawyers accuse her of numerous lies
PUB accepted 70 percent of responsibility for the accident, but questioned the nature and extent of his injuries.
Madam Chan initially claimed that the schizophrenia was due to three potential causes: the accident, the stress of litigation, and being followed up by private investigators hired by PUB’s insurers.
After the trial began on November 23, he amended his case again and dropped the last two alleged cases.
On the night of November 26, after being questioned at the booth for four days, she accepted PUB’s offer to settle by email.
On Monday, his attorneys, Mr. L. Devadason and Ivan Lee of LegalStandard, claimed costs of $ 90,000 for work performed up to the day the offer was made.
PUB’s attorneys, Mr. K. Anparasan and Mrs. Grace Tan of WhiteFern, requested $ 95,000 for trial preparation and four days of trial. They also requested $ 31,000 for the amendments.
Each side argued that the other party should not receive costs.
In giving his decision, the judicial commissioner noted that there were a number of “unsatisfactory” aspects in the Madam Chan case.
She noted that her claims for physical injuries contradicted surveillance footage of her walking without apparent difficulty.
Questions were also raised as to whether she was actually employed by a company called HP&S, which turned out to be a dormant company that is currently owned by her maternal uncle.
[[nid:510421]]However, the judicial commissioner said the fact remains that she was injured in an accident, for which PUB agreed to be 70% responsible and had made an offer to settle.
He moderated the costs that Madam Chan should receive because “he seemed to be trying to improve her case by going to a succession of doctors and asking them to change their reports.”
Regarding PUB’s costs, he noted that under court rules, PUB was entitled to costs from November 24 onwards, or 14 days after the offer was delivered to Madam Chan (on November 10, November).
Therefore, PUB was only able to get costs from November 24-26, or from the second to the fourth test day.
This article was first published in The times of the strait. Permission is required for reproduction.
