Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd and Another v VCS Vardan

• Judge: L P Thean JA
• Judgment Date: 04 December 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGCA 58
• Citation: [1997] SGCA 58
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Subject Matter: Whether order for discovery necessary for fair disposal of matter,To determine whether there is cause of action for defamation against appellants,Documents are used to assess damages for previous suit,Respondent seeking documents which are already given in previous suit against appellants,Application,Whether application an abuse of process,Discovery of documents,O 24 rr 7A & 8 Rules of Court 1996,Civil Procedure
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: DK Rai (Harry Elias & Pnrs)
• Plaintiff Counsel: R 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...