Vaz Lorrain v. Singapore Rifle Assn: Breach of Mediation Agreement & Offer to Settle

Mr. Michael Vaz Lorrain appealed the High Court's decision awarding damages to the Singapore Rifle Association (SRA) for breach of a mediation agreement and/or duty of confidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the original damages award of $8,100 and awarding nominal damages of $1,000 to SRA. The court applied Order 22A rule 9(3) of the Rules of Court regarding an offer to settle made by Mr. Vaz, ordering SRA to pay Mr. Vaz's costs incurred after the date of the offer on an indemnity basis.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding breach of mediation agreement and offer to settle. Court awarded nominal damages and applied costs rules related to the offer.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Michael Vaz LorrainAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Singapore Rifle AssociationRespondent, PlaintiffAssociationNominal Damages AwardedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealNo
Steven ChongJudge of AppealNo
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lee Hwee Khiam AnthonyBih Li & Lee LLP
Huineng Clement ChenBih Li & Lee LLP
Wong Hin Pkin WendellDrew & Napier LLC
Wong Zi Qiang BryanDrew & Napier LLC
Andrew Chua RuimingDrew & Napier LLC
Chen Jie’An JaredDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Vaz is the president of the Singapore Shooting Association's council.
  2. SRA sued Mr. Vaz for breach of a mediation agreement and/or a duty of confidence.
  3. Mr. Vaz did not dispute liability, and interlocutory judgment was entered against him.
  4. Mr. Vaz sent a document containing details of the mediation session to members of the Singapore Gun Club Committee.
  5. The document was uploaded to a public Facebook group and shared by Mr. Vaz on his personal Facebook page.
  6. SRA claimed compensatory and punitive damages, quantifying the latter at $1.5m.
  7. Mr. Vaz served an offer to settle (OTS) on SRA for $25,000, which SRA did not accept.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle Association, Civil Appeal No 60 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 114

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties entered into the Mediation Agreement
SRA commenced Suit 109
Mr Vaz filed his Defence
SRA's solicitors noted Mr Vaz had not raised any legal defenses
Mr Vaz's solicitors informed SRA that Mr Vaz was disputing SRA's claim for punitive damages
Mr Vaz served the Offer to Settle on SRA
SRA filed an application for interlocutory judgment
Parties appeared before the Judge for the hearing of the Summary Judgment Application
SRA filed its Opening Statement
The Judge gave his decision in respect of the assessment of damages
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Vaz breached the mediation agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of Mediation Agreement
      • Breach of Confidentiality
  2. Damages
    • Outcome: The court awarded nominal damages of $1,000 instead of the $8,100 awarded by the lower court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Nominal Damages
      • Punitive Damages
      • Compensatory Damages
  3. Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court applied Order 22A rule 9(3) of the Rules of Court, ordering SRA to pay Mr. Vaz's costs incurred after the date of the offer on an indemnity basis.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Costs
      • Indemnity Basis
      • Standard Basis

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Injunction
  3. Punitive Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Confidence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Michael Vaz Lorrain v Singapore Rifle AssociationSingapore High CourtYes[2020] 2 SLR 808SingaporeCited regarding the OTS could no longer be accepted after the first instance judgment.
Ganesan Carlose & Partners v Lee Siew ChunCourt of AppealYes[1995] 1 SLR(R) 358SingaporeEndorsed the proposition that a party to court proceedings may not recover his costs of those proceedings from any other party to them except by an award of costs by the court.
Gray v Sirtex Medical LtdFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2011) 193 FCR 1AustraliaNoted that a distinction has long been drawn between damages and legal costs, such that a successful plaintiff cannot recover its costs of the proceedings from the defendant as damages.
Singapore Shooting Association and others v Singapore Rifle AssociationCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 395SingaporeLegal fees incurred in investigating a conspiracy will not be recoverable as damages in a claim in conspiracy.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 199SingaporeA claimant cannot make a claim for damages without placing before the court sufficient evidence of the quantum of loss it had suffered.
Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia LtdCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 141SingaporeAffirmed the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292SingaporeCited for the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Browne v DunnHouse of LordsYes(1893) 6 R 67United KingdomCited for the rule in Browne v Dunn.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 496SingaporeA legal system’s rules on costs are necessarily a matter of social policy.
Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock PeterHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 1052SingaporeThe costs awarded to be reasonable and proportional.
Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh JessilineHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 455SingaporeThe costs awarded to be reasonable and proportional.
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1043SingaporeThe expression “the disposal of the claim” in O 22A r 9(3)(a) refers to “the final disposal of the claim on appeal if an appeal is filed”.
LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd (judgment on costs)High CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 134SingaporeEndorsed the broad approach taken by the High Court in LK Ang Construction Pte Ltd v Chubb Singapore Pte Ltd.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu LengCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 439SingaporeThe whole object of O 22A is to spur the parties to bring litigation to an expeditious end without judgment, and thus to save costs and judicial time.
PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 129SingaporeMediation agreements or, at the minimum, confidentiality provisions in mediation agreements fall within the exception to the general rule that punitive damages should not be ordered for breach of contract.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 470SingaporeThe O 22A regime is a regime which seeks to promote certainty and encourage settlement of the action between the parties.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20SingaporeThe word ‘favourable’ has to be interpreted in the context in which it is used.
Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 267SingaporeFavourability should not be restricted only to monetary terms.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267SingaporeIt is precisely in a case where the question of law involved is of some complexity, that there should be some give and take on both sides.
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 1070SingaporeIn determining whether an offer to settle is reasonable, serious or genuine, it would suffice that there is a legitimate basis for the offer made and the offer is not illusory.
Singapore Airlines Ltd and another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38SingaporeThe offer was considered to lack any legitimate basis because it had been made purely to secure for the defendants the payment of costs of the action by the plaintiffs from the date of the offer on the indemnity basis in the event that the defendants prevailed at the trial.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016Singapore
State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mediation Agreement
  • Offer to Settle
  • Confidential Information
  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • Punitive Damages
  • Nominal Damages
  • Indemnity Basis
  • Standard Basis
  • Rules of Court
  • Costs

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • mediation
  • offer to settle
  • damages
  • costs
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Offer to Settle90
Costs80
Damages80
Civil Practice75
Civil Procedure75
Breach of Confidence60
Contract Law50
Arbitration30
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Damages
  • Mediation
  • Settlement
  • Costs