Ng Giok Oh & 3 Others v Sajjad Akhtar & 2 Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 169
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 169
• Defendant Counsel: Yip Weng (Shook Lin & Bok),Manjit Singh and Sree Govin Menon (Manjit & Partners),Lawrence Quahe and Yeo Yen Ping (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Glenn Cheng (Lee & Lee)
• Date: 31 July 2002
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 655 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Whether notes or drafts of court assessors discoverable,Pre-action discovery,Courts and Jurisdiction,Court judgments,Whether advice of court assessors open to scrutiny,Discovery of documents,Role of court assessors

essentially a technical expert for the judge to consult and takes no part in the judgment. What an assessor (as opposed to a court expert) says is not evidence upon which the parties are entitled to cross-examine. The use of an assessor is a privilege of the court and the privilege of the assessor is that his errors will only be exposed through the judgment, or else be buried with it. ([7] – [8])

CASE(S) REFERRED TO

Arensen v Casson Beckman Rutley & Co

[1975] 3 All ER 901 (refd)

Kuah Kok Kim v Ernst & Young

[1997] 1 SLR 169 (refd)

Richardson v Redpath, Brown & Co Ltd

[1944] AC 62 (folld)

Sutcliffe v Thackrah

[1974] AC 727

The Beryl

[1884] 9 PD 137 (folld)

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an application for pre-action discovery. The plaintiffs in this Originating Summons were the second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996. By this present application the plaintiffs sought discovery of documents consisting of working drafts, draft reports, correspondence, and attendance notes (including notes with the judge in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996). The three defendants were all court appointed assessors (nominated by consent of all parties) in the Originating Summons 727 of 1996 proceedings where Mr. Haridass appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Wong Meng Meng appeared for the defendants in the Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 proceedings. Mr. Wong has since been discharged and Mr. Cheng presently acts for three of the defendants, now the first, second, and fourth, plaintiffs in this Originating Summons No. 655 of 2002. Mr. Manjit Singh acts for the fifth plaintiff in Originating Summons No. 655 of 2002. Mr. Yip appeared for Mr. Sajjad Akhtar, the first defendant here, and one of the assessors in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996. Mr. Quahe appeared for Mr. Philip Leow, the third defendant, who was also an assessor in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996. Mr. Chee Keng Hoy, the second defendant here, also an assessor in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996, was served in Malaysia but had not entered an appearance. The intended action against the three defendants, or any of them, according to counsel, is based on negligence. It will be necessary to refer to the historical background, namely the Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 proceedings in order to appreciate what this application is about.

2. The plaintiffs in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 were essentially the Bajumi family (the Bajumis) from Indonesia. The defendants were essentially the Tan family (the Tans) in Singapore. The respective patriarchs of the Bajumis and Tans started off as good friends and business partners. Together they built up a successful business which, at the time of the Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 proceedings, included a large rubber plantation in Indonesia, the Afro-Asia Building in Singapore, and a substantial investment in a public company called Ssangyong Cement Singapore Ltd. In the course of time, the divergent vision, and the size of the families severely tested the old Bajumi-Tan partnership and it buckled, resulting in litigation; initially with a winding-up petition, but eventually in Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996. It is not necessary for present purposes to set out all the details of the previous proceedings and I shall only set out the main ones such as are relevant for an understanding of the present Originating Summons.

3. When Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 came up for hearing in April 1998 counsel for the parties informed the court (and I should mention for the present record that I was the judge who heard the Originating Summons No. 727 of 1996 proceedings) that the parties had reached an agreement to settle their dispute and to that end, have agreed on a formula. The general consensus was that all three assets, which I had mentioned above, were to be valued and the Bajumis would buy over the Tans' interests in the rubber plantation in Indonesia; and likewise, the Tans would buy over the Bajumis' interests in the Afro-Asia Building and Ssangyong Cement (S) Ltd's shares in Singapore. Consequently, the parties recorded a consent order which provided the mechanism and formula for the valuation of the assets, and thereafter, the valuation of the shares of the respective holding companies. This consent order was varied by consent in November 1999. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that one of the keys in the formula envisaged in the April 1998 consent order was that the valuation of the assets must include a consideration of the market value on six specifically agreed dates in respect of the Ssangyong shares, and four specifically agreed dates in respect of the Afro-Asia Building. The significant variation in November 1999 was to qualify the formula by adding the words "if possible" to qualify the requirement of using the market value of those six and four given dates respectively. The parties could not eventually agree on the value of the assets using the formula that they had agreed. The discrepancy was far too great. The expert advising the Bajumis in respect of the Ssangyong shares valued the shares at S$3.34 a share, and the Afro-Asia Building at about S$66m. The expert advising the Tans was of the view that the sums should be S$1.03 and S$37m respectively. The disagreement over...