Thyssen Hunnebeck Singapore Pte Ltd v TTJ Civil Engineering Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 21 October 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 247
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 247
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mark Lim (Wong & Leow LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Christopher Goh (Ang & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Discovery of documents,Test for relevancy

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. This was an appeal against an assistant registrar's decision refusing the plaintiff's application for discovery of various documents. The defendants were at all material times a scaffolding sub-contractor who were involved in a major building project, namely a depot for the Mass Rapid Transport system's North-East line. Hyundai Engineering And Construction Ltd were the main contractors. The plaintiffs were suppliers of scaffoldings who contracted to supply the defendants with scaffoldings.

2. The plaintiffs supplied scaffoldings pursuant to their contract with the defendants. There is no dispute concerning this supply. However, by virtue of cl 2.3 of the contract, the plaintiffs were obliged to supply further quantities at no cost to the defendants if a request was made by them under the clause in question. Clause 2.3 sets out as follows:

"The Buyer and Seller have agreed to the supply of additional formwork equipment [the scaffolding] on loan without rental charges (refer to On Loan Terms and Conditions Appendix E) in the event acceleration of the project is required with the Buyer giving the Seller four weeks advance written delivery notice. For the additional formwork coverage, the Seller will supply the standard equipment (refer to Appendix B, C and D) and other equipment i.e. plywood (for decking only) to be supplied by the Buyer."

One of the issues in dispute between the parties is whether the defendants were obliged to pay for the additional scaffolding. The plaintiffs aver that their invoices for the additional scaffoldings had been used as the basis upon which the defendants made a claim from the main contractors. It is not relevant to consider the merits of the claim and defence as that was not in issue here or below, save that Mr. Goh, counsel for the defendants, argued that the documents sought to be discovered have nothing to do with the claim. He submitted that the documents, including invoices between the sub-contractor (plaintiffs) and the main contractors are irrelevant to the trial.

3. Mr. Lim, counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there are three reasons why the documents sought are relevant. First, he says that the correspondence and invoices may shed light as to whether the request for additional formwork was indeed made pursuant to cl 2.3. It will be recalled that under that clause, the request appears to be predicated on the basis that work was accelerated. Whether that is indeed so is, of course, a matter for the trial judge to decide, but at this stage, it seems to me that the documents may have some connection with the issue.

4. Secondly, Mr. Lim submitted that if the documents and invoices reveal that the defendants had claimed against the main contractors for the formwork then they may be estopped from denying that plaintiffs are entitled to be paid for supplying the scaffolding. This argument is...