Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc
Court | International Commercial Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Jeremy Lionel Cooke IJ |
Judgment Date | 16 July 2020 |
Neutral Citation | [2020] SGHC(I) 18 |
Citation | [2020] SGHC(I) 18 |
Published date | 30 July 2020 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Tan Teck San Kelvin, Chen Chuanjian Jason, Chng Hu Ping (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Roderick Edward Martin SC, Rajaram Ramiah, Yap Yongzhi Gideon, Eugene Tan (RHTLaw Asia LLP) |
Docket Number | Suit No 4 of 2019 (Summons No 30 and 31 of 2020) |
Hearing Date | 25 June 2020,22 June 2020 |
Date | 16 July 2020 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Attendance,Evidence,Pleadings,Witnesses,Rules of court,Further and better particulars |
This judgment pertains to two applications: (a) the plaintiff’s application for Further and Better Particulars in SIC/SUM 30/2020 (“SUM 30”); and (b) the plaintiff’s application in SIC/SUM 31/2020 (“SUM 31”) for certain orders and/or directions. I address the applications in turn.
SUM 30 The plaintiff seeks Further and Better Particulars of paragraph 27 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim, originally served on 24 May 2019 and amended twice since, on 1 July 2019 and 11 June 2020, in the light of what are said to be inadequate further particulars furnished on 21 November 2019 (“Further Particulars”) in response to a request dated 14 October 2019. That request related to the Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) (which is unchanged in the Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 2)) where the following was pleaded:
Order 18 rule 12(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”) provides that the court may order a party to serve on any other party particulars of any claim, defence or other matters stated in his pleading or a statement of the nature of the case on which he relies, and the order may be made on such terms as the court thinks just.
Particulars were sought by the plaintiff as to:
In the Further Particulars provided on 21 November 2019, the defendant stated that the cancellations took place “[i]n or around December 2018” and that CamAir and Turkish Technic were each contacted by telephone and informed that the defendant or its associated company was unable to complete the contracts as the defendant had not procured the aircraft from the plaintiff. The defendant stated that the particulars sought as to the name and designation of the parties’ representatives were not relevant to the pleaded case, using the same wording as that given in response to the request to identify any documents containing communications of cancellation.
The short point at issue is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to the particulars that have been refused in relation to the identification of the parties’ representatives, by name and designation, and the identification of any relevant documents recording the alleged cancellations. The defendant maintains that these are matters of evidence, more appropriate to issues of discovery or interrogatories and are not matters of pleading since the plaintiff knows the nature of the case being made against it and is able to plead to it.
In support of that proposition, the defendant contends that the application for these particulars is an abuse of process because further and better particulars are not to be confused with evidence and “if the only object of the summons be to obtain the names of witnesses or some other clue to the evidence of the other party, it will be dismissed”, citing the commentary in
There can be no doubt as to the general principles applicable and the distinction to be drawn between pleading facts and evidence. Nonetheless, when facts are pleaded, they must be pleaded with sufficient particularity for the other party to know the case it has to meet and to assess what evidence it needs to adduce to meet that case.
It is for that reason that both practice and the authorities require details of pleaded contracts, variations or cancellations to be given, by reference to what have become fairly standard forms of words. The point is clearly made by Vivian Ramsey IJ in
… stating whether the said [agreement/variation/cancellation] was made orally or in writing; if orally stating when, where and between whom the said [agreement/variation/cancellation] was made and stating the substance of the words used and all relevant terms relied on: if in writing identifying all material documents.
The learned judge in
The same point is made in
In such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to the particulars requested, and the defendant is required to identify the individuals who were involved in the cancellation arrangements. The request, following on from the previous answer that the cancellation arrangements were made by telephone in or about December 2018 requires the defendant to state the name and designation of each of the parties’ representatives who made and received the relevant communications and if there was any communication in writing, to identify the documents containing those communications, giving full particulars of the documents in question.
In an affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant, it was suggested that there was inexcusable delay in bringing the application, but the point was not pursued in the defendant’s submissions and has no substance because the parties were, in the interim period between November 2019 and the date of the summons, engaged in attempts to settle this matter, which resulted in an adjournment of various dates fixed for hearings and, moreover, no prejudice could be shown to flow from the delay in any event.
The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the orders sought and to costs. Costs are to be assessed if they cannot be agreed on between the parties.
SUM 31 The plaintiff’s application in SUM 31 is for, in the main, the following orders/directions:
The parties have agreed that I should determine this application on paper without oral submissions pursuant to directions given by the court.
The powers of the courtThe relevant provision...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and another
...Scintronix Corp Ltd v Ho Kang Peng and another [2011] SGHC 28 at [25]; Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc [2020] 5 SLR 221 at [19]. Bifurcation in this case did not substantively change the nature of the dispute before the court. Liability still remained the precurso......
-
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd
...International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 1, CA (refd) Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc [2020] 5 SLR 221 (refd) Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] 2 SLR 850 (folld) Yeo Boong Hua v Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd [2019] SGHC 73 (folld) Legislation referr......