Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and Another v VCS Vardan

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeL P Thean JA
Judgment Date04 December 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGCA 58
Date04 December 1997
Subject MatterWhether order for discovery necessary for fair disposal of matter,Discovery of documents,To determine whether there is cause of action for defamation against appellants,Respondent seeking documents which are already given in previous suit against appellants,O 24 rr 7A & 8 Rules of Court 1996,Civil Procedure,Whether application an abuse of process,Application,Documents are used to assess damages for previous suit
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 61 of 1997
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselDK Rai (Harry Elias & Pnrs)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselR Karuppan Chettiar and Steven Lam Kuet Keng (Karuppan Chettiar & Pnrs)
Judgment:

KARTHIGESU JA

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): We allowed this appeal with costs here and below and now give our reasons. It essentially deals with the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings, pursuant to O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court 1996. The originating summons herein was issued out of the subordinate courts on 12 April 1996. The Rules of Court 1996 consolidating the Rules of the Subordinate Courts 1993 and the Rules of the Supreme Court 1990 came into operation on 1 April 1996.

2.The originating summons herein as framed was for the discovery of all documents in the possession, custody or control of the appellants, Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and Cenobia Majella, relating to their complaint against the respondent and one A Tamilselvam to the Law Society of Singapore. The second appellant is a director of the first appellant.

3.The affidavit in support of this application was made by the respondent who deposed on 12 April 1996 that he was an advocate and solicitor of about 12 years standing and the senior partner in the firm of VCS Vardan & Co; that he had instituted an action against the first appellant and one of its directors, Kannappan Chettiar in DC Suit No 63/95 for defaming him in a letter dated 15 November 1994; that he was given judgment on 28 March 1995 and damages were assessed at $30,000 on 27 January 1996; that by a letter dated 16 December 1994 the first and second appellants had complained to the Law Society of Singapore against the respondent and the said Tamilselvam and had forwarded therewith a copy of the letter dated 15 November 1994 referred to above; that on 13 February 1996 his solicitors had enquired of the Law Society`s Council whether the complaint had been considered to which his solicitors received a reply on 22 February 1996 from which he inferred that the complaint had been `dismissed` as being `frivolous and scandalous`.

4.The respondent further deposed that he wanted to obtain copies of the correspondence exchanged between the first and second appellants and the Law Society `in order to ascertain whether the appellants had defamed him with malicious intent.` He said he had been advised by his solicitors that he had a cause of action for defamation against (the appellants) based on the letter of 16 December 1994 and its enclosures.

5.In response to the respondent`s affidavit the said Kannappan Chettiar deposed on 13 May 1996 that since DC Suit No 63/95 had been concluded it was unnecessary to seek further discovery of documents and in any case all documents relating to the matters in question had already been supplied to the respondent and that to the best of his knowledge neither he nor the first appellant had any other documents in their possession. He referred to his affidavit verifying the supplementary list of documents in DC Suit No 63/95 affirmed on 20 June 1995 and to the supplementary list of documents itself listing five documents as being the only ones in his and the first appellant`s possession, custody or power relating to the appellants` complaint to the Law Society against the respondent and the said Tamilselvam. The five documents were: (1). 16-12-1994: Letter from the defendants to the Law Society.

(2). 23-12-1994: Letter from the Law Society to the defendants.

(3). 13-1-1995: Letter from the defendants to the Law Society.

(4). 17-1-1995: Letter from the Law Society to the defendants.

(5). 31-3-1995: Letter from the Law Society to the defendants.

`Defendants` as used above refers to the first appellant and the said Kannappan Chettiar or the second appellant.

6.The second appellant deposed, also on 13 May 1996, by referring to the said Kannappan Chettiar`s affidavit referred to in the paragraph above and adding that she too did not have in her possession any other documents other than those which had already been disclosed in the earlier action.

7.It is evident from the foregoing that the respondent or his solicitors had copies of the five letters listed in the supplementary list of documents in DC Suit No 63/95 and that damages were assessed seven months later in January 1996. During the intervening seven months no allegations appear to have been made that the first appellant and the said Kannappan Chettiar were withholding documents and had not made full and frank disclosure of all documents in their possession, custody or power relating to their complaint to the Law Society against the respondent and the said Tamilselvam. One must therefore assume that full and frank disclosure of documents had been made in DC Suit No 63/95.

8.It is also evident that the intended action in respect of which this application under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court was made is the very same matter as was the subject of DC Suit No 63/95 except that instead of suing the first appellant and the said Kannappan Chettiar, the intended action is against the first appellant and the second appellant, another director of the first appellant. The first appellant`s letter of complaint to the Law Society dated 16 December 1994 was signed by the second appellant whereas the first appellant`s letter to the respondent`s firm dated 15 December 1994, the subject matter of DC Suit No 63/95 was signed by the said Kannappan Chettiar.

9.In our view, it is in the light of the foregoing facts and circumstances that the respondent`s application under O 24 r 7A of the Rules of Court must be considered. The relevant sub-rules are (1) and (3) which we set out below:

O 24 r 7A

(1) An application for an order for the discovery of documents before the commencement of proceedings shall be made by originating summons (in Form 7) and the person against whom the order is sought shall be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd and Another v Koh Chye Heng
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • September 23, 1998
    ...and he struck it out. 18. Sim Leng Chua was approved by this court in Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd & Anor v VCS Vardan [1998] 1 SLR 641 . In that case, a solicitor, V, sued the defendant company and one of its directors for defamation. In the course of the proceedings on discov......
  • Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and Others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • March 1, 2007
    ...Corporation v SM Summit Holdings Ltd [1999] 4 SLR 529 (“Microsoft Corporation”); Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v VCS Vardan [1998] 1 SLR 641; and Hong Lam Marine Pte Ltd v Koh Chye Heng [1998] 3 SLR 833 (“Hong Lam Marine”); as well as the Singapore High Court decision of Sim Len......
  • Gelatissimo Ventures (S) Pte Ltd and Others v Singapore Flyer Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • October 21, 2009
    ...his application on the basis that it amounts to abuse of process (see Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and Another v VCS Vardan [1998] 1 SLR 641 (“Stansfield”)). In Stansfield, the respondent had sought pre-action discovery against the appellant in order to determine if he had a ca......
  • Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • January 29, 2015
    ...eg, Sim Leng Chua v Manghardt [1987] SLR(R) 52 (“Manghardt”); Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and another v V C S Vardan [1997] 3 SLR(R) 857 and Business Software Alliance and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd and another and other appeals [2000] 1 SLR(R) 819). The following passage......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT