Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 5)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 27 August 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 188
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 939 of 1991
• Date: 27 August 2004
• Published date: 02 September 2004
• Year: 2004
• Plaintiff Counsel: Andre Arul (Arul Chew and Partners)
• Citation: [2004] SGHC 188
• Defendant Counsel: Khoo Boo Jin (Wee Swee Teow and Co),Vinodh S Coomaraswamy and Stanley Tok (Shook Lin and Bok),Arul Chandran (C Arul and Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether documents produced before registrar but not admitted forming part of record of appeal,Objections,Production of documents,Civil Procedure,Paragraph 53 Supreme Court Practice Directions (1997 Ed),Whether to exclude such documents from record of appeal

27 August 2004

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This is an application by the first, third and fourth respondents, who were the respective defendants in an inquiry ordered under Originating Summons No 939 of 1991. They sought to expunge a number of documents from the index of the record to be filed by the appellant who was the plaintiff in the originating summons. The documents in question were identified as items 77 to 79, 97 to 99, 100, 104, 105 to 121, 182, 183, 209 and 221, as well as 82 (in particular, items 28, 29 and 37 thereunder) and 135. The appellant was represented by Mr Andre Arul. Her ex-husband, who is the second respondent, was represented by Mr Arul Chandran who stated that his client was not participating in the present application.

2 The objection by the first, third and fourth respondents to the documents, was that these documents were not in evidence before Assistant Registrar Phang Hsiao Chung (“AR Phang”), who conducted the inquiry, nor were they before me on appeal. Mr Vinodh Coomaraswamy appeared on behalf of the third and fourth respondents and Mr Khoo Boo Jin appeared on behalf of the first respondent.

3 In order to appreciate the arguments of counsel, it will be useful to first note that when Chao Hick Tin J (as he then was) delivered his judgment in the originating summons, he ordered (at [4]) that:

[t]he Estate’s books, vouchers, records and other documents shall be evidence of the matters contained therein with liberty to the parties to take such objections as they think fit.

When the inquiry commenced, the documents that were brought to court were voluminous. Counsel for all the parties had referred to them as numbering in the “tens of thousands”. Many of these documents were obtained in the execution of an Anton Pillar order.

4 At the commencement of the inquiry, Mr Andre Arul sought to admit all the documents in the form of compact discs but AR Phang refused and ordered that a core bundle be admitted. However, he subsequently gave leave to the plaintiff to produce a further bundle so as to put an end to documents being introduced one by one as the inquiry proceeded. This was done and a bundle was accordingly produced. Counsel for the plaintiff continued to present more documents apart from those in the bundles already admitted. AR Phang then ordered the plaintiff to produce one final bundle, after which no further document was to be introduced.

5 In the appeal before me against the findings of AR Phang, counsel for the plaintiff produced various bundles of documents. They included documents that were not part of any bundle produced before the assistant registrar. These were “produced” in the sense that they were brought into chambers but no application, and thus no order, was made to admit any such...