1. Suit No. 660 of 2008/K was commenced by Stansfield College in the High Court against Teo Chua Chin, T. Durairajoo, Alan Ng Kam Cheong and the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Singapore (“ICPAS”) (collectively referred to as the Defendants) sometime in September 2008.
2. Teo Chua Chin, T. Durairajoo, Alan Ng Kam Cheong, the 1st to 3rd Defendants of Suit No. 660 of 2008/K (“the proceedings”) are lecturers who used to lecture at Stansfield College before they started lecturing at the Singapore Accountancy Academy (“SAA”) sometime in 2007.
3. The allegations of copyright infringement made by Stansfield College against the Defendants relates to certain supplementary notes in the UOL programme.
4. Since the commencement of the action, SAA did not use the notes in question to avoid further complications and does not intend to use these notes anymore as SAA has since developed a new set of comprehensive course materials for its students.
5. ICPAS maintains and continues to maintain that Stansfield College’s claims are unmeritorious. At all times, ICPAS was ready, willing and able to rigorously defend Stansfield College’s claims.
6. As in all lawsuits, it is in the interest of any defending litigant to avoid expending unnecessary time and costs by exploring settlement without admitting liability. Solely on this footing, the 1st to 3rd Defendants, together with ICPAS, made an offer to settle for a nominal sum of $20,000 a whole month before trial.
7. Although the offer to settle was made before the trial started, Stansfield College persisted in going for trial.
8. Stansfield College only accepted the nominal settlement offer on the 3rd day of trial, after two of Stansfield College’s witnesses had been rigorously cross-examined by the Defendants' solicitors. This delay in accepting the offer has certain costs consequences against Stansfield College. Had Stansfield College persisted further, the offer of settlement would have been withdrawn.
9. Stansfield College chose to accept the nominal settlement sum of $20,000, which is less than 10% of what Stansfield College was minimally seeking by commencing its action in the High Court which has a monetary limit of $250,000 or more.
10. By accepting the nominal settlement offer,
a. Stansfield College has not proven its case against the Defendants as there has been no determination by the Court.
b. Stansfield College has to wholly discontinue its action without any admission of liability by any of the Defendants whatsoever.