Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 146
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 30 May 2011
• Docket Number: Suit No 156 of 2006 (Registrar’s Appeal No 158 of 2011)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in-person
• Defendant Counsel: Sylvia Tee (Allen & Gledhill LLP),Chandra Mohan s/o Rethnam and Gillian Hauw Hui Ying (Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure
• Published date: 01 July 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

Jane Rebecca Ong (“the plaintiff”) is the modern day Odysseus. She first arrived in the courts here in 1991 when she sued her former husband and his mother for various claims including the fraudulent transfer and concealment of assets to which she had a share. The present proceedings, taking place about 20 years later, seem remote to the Originating Summons she filed in 1991 but is connected to and arose from that action.

The plaintiff had made many journeys to the courts, and in the present proceedings she is again the plaintiff. The first defendant was the firm of accountants that was engaged to act as her experts in proceedings arising from the Originating Summons No 939 of 1991 action. The first defendant had since transformed itself into a new entity known as a limited liability partnership and thus named as the second defendant. The third defendant was the firm of solicitors that acted for her in previous proceedings in 2004 and 2005. Like Odysseus, the plaintiff faced many obstacles in her journeys. The latest came in the form of an application by the third defendant to strike out parts of her (the plaintiff) claim against it (the third defendant). There have been many decisions bearing the title of “Jane Rebecca Ong” hence, for convenience and the avoidance of confusion this episode may be referred to as “Jane Rebecca Ong and the Phantom Strike”.

In the present proceedings in Suit No 156 of 2006 the plaintiff is claiming damages in tort and contract for the alleged negligent conduct on the part of her professional advisers. Her statement of claim is 271 pages long. Counsel, English Queen’s Counsel and our Senior Counsel included, readily settle pleadings in fewer than twenty pages even in cases no less complex or complicated than the present. Verbosity or necessity? That question should serve as a requisite test for every line pleaded in any pleadings - must a statement setting out the facts that support a cause or even several causes of action require hundreds of paragraphs and pages? An abuse of the general interlocutory process, such as a request for further and better particulars can sometimes contribute to excess and verbosity in the pleadings, and consequent interlocutory applications will increase the costs of litigation. Returning to the basics in pleadings is thus an appropriate starting point in drafting. Subsequently, counsel should properly consider what rightfully lies in the province of further and better particulars, in discovery, in interrogatories, and finally, in the affidavits of evidence-in-chief. The trained and experienced eye will see the logical and systematic progression of the pre-trial case thus unfolding expeditiously and gradually, but without hurry or excess.

In the present case, horrified by the...