Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 21 October 2002
• Date: 21 October 2002
• Docket Number: Suit No 766 of 2001 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 247

Choo Han Teck JC

Suit No 766 of 2001 (Registrar's Appeal No 259 of 2002)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Discovery of documents–Test for relevancy

The defendants were a scaffolding sub-contractor who were involved in a major building project. The plaintiffs were suppliers of scaffolding who contracted to supply the defendants with scaffoldings. The contract required the plaintiffs to supply additional quantities of scaffolding to the defendants “in the event acceleration of the project is required”, if a request was made pursuant to the relevant clause in the contract. One issue in dispute was whether the defendants were obliged to pay for the additional scaffolding. The plaintiffs averred that their invoices for the additional scaffolding had been used as the basis for a claim by the defendants from the main contractors.

The plaintiffs applied, inter alia, for discovery of documents relating to the scaffolding contract between the main contractor and the defendants, including all invoices pertaining to it. An assistant registrar refused the plaintiffs' application for discovery. The plaintiffs appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Under cl 2.3 of the contract, the request for additional scaffolding appeared to be predicated on the basis that work was accelerated. Whether that was indeed so is a matter for the trial judge to decide, but at this stage, it seemed that the documents might have some connection with the issue whether the request for additional scaffolding was indeed made pursuant to cl 2.3: at [3].

(2) The plaintiffs' counsel submitted that if the documents and invoices revealed that the defendants had claimed against the main contractors for the scaffolding, then the defendants might be estopped from denying that the plaintiffs were entitled to be paid for supplying the scaffolding. This argument, premised on the event that cl 2.3 did not apply, was not entirely lacking in merit. The test to be applied was whether the documents requested might contain information relevant to the plaintiffs' case: at [4].

(3) The plaintiffs argued an alternative claim in quantum meruit.The documents requested might show that the defendants had received a benefit such that it would be unjust for them to retain that benefit without paying the plaintiffs. The documents sought were in connection with work done by the defendants for the main contractor for which the scaffolding was provided by the plaintiffs. Where the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was virtually a back-to-back contract in part, if not wholly so, with a third party, and evidence necessary to support the plaintiffs' case might reasonably be found in documents passing between the defendants and the third party, then those documents were discoverable. The fact that no relevant...