Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ritronics Components (S'pore) Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 12 December 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 215
• Date: 12 December 2006
• Subject Matter: Order 26 r 1 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed),Interrogatories,Civil Procedure,Scope for use of interrogatories under O 26 r 1 Rules of Court,Whether to order withdrawal of interrogatories issued after trial of main action and during proceedings for assessment of damages
• Docket Number: Suit No 672 of 2002 (Registrar's Appeal No 275 of 2006)
• Published date: 14 December 2006
• Defendant Counsel: Wendy Low Wei Ling (Hee Theng Fong & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jason Chan and Wong Tsung Wei (Amica Law LLC)

12 December 2006 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s order of 15 September 2006 directing that the interrogatories issued by the plaintiff on 11 August 2006 be withdrawn. These interrogatories arose in the context of proceedings to assess damages (“the AD proceedings”) after a trial in which Lai Kew Chai J (“Lai J”) decided the question of liability in the plaintiff’s favour (“the liability proceedings”): see Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd v F E Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others and other suits (No 2) [2005] 3 SLR 389. The decision of Lai J was affirmed on 11 November 2005 by the Court of Appeal (see F E Global Electronics Pte Ltd and others v Trek Technology (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal [2006] 1 SLR 874). Shortly thereafter, on 20 December 2005, the plaintiff applied for directions to commence the AD proceedings.

2 The plaintiff’s allegation that the defendant breached its patent by producing and selling thumb drives under the names “SlimDisk” and “BioSlimDisk” was the principal issue in this action. To set matters in their appropriate context, I should first point out that the present set of interrogatories was filed after discovery had already been completed in the AD proceedings. The affidavit verifying the defendant’s list of documents in discovery was filed on 6 February 2006 (“the first affidavit”). Pursuant to an application by the plaintiff, the defendant’s managing director filed another affidavit on 17 April 2006 (“the second affidavit”). In both these affidavits, the relevant personnel of the defendant had affirmed that it had disclosed all its documents for the purposes of assessing its liability to pay damages. The second affidavit unequivocally denied that the defendant had any manufacturing facility or production in Singapore or had made or manufactured any of the infringing products in Singapore. It also maintained that the defendant did not have possession of any correspondence with suppliers of the components of the infringing products, or of any documents relating to the manufacture of these products. The affidavit expressly stated that all relevant commercial documents had been disclosed. The plaintiff, not being satisfied with these denials and the position taken by the defendant that there was nothing more to disclose, consequently served the present list of interrogatories on the defendant.

3 There were a total of 36 interrogatories but they were variations of two broad themes. The first general category of questions related to the defendant’s acts of infringement in making, selling or distributing the infringing products, whilst the second concerned the existence and location of documents arising from or connected with the making, testing, selling, and distribution of the said products. The factual basis for the plaintiff’s application was Lai J’s judgment in the liability proceedings, as well as the admission that the defendant had taken 100 pieces of the products to an international exhibition, CeBit; although 70 of these 100 pieces were brought back to Singapore, there was no documentary evidence as to what had happened to the rest. The plaintiff’s counsel, Mr Jason Chan, also relied on unconfirmed newspaper reports wherein the defendant’s managing director had announced that it planned to sell “100,000 BioSlimDisk worldwide” by the end of 2002. Mr Chan thus submitted that it could not be true that no documents connected with such grand designs could be found. Furthermore, he pointed out that the defendant had claimed to have invested more than $1,000,000 in the research and manufacture of its products. He submitted that it would be incredible that no documentary proof existed in relation to these activities. Mr Chan submitted that the interrogatories were necessary in the AD proceedings because first, they would tend to show the extent of the defendant’s infringing dealings and the market demand for its products. Secondly, they would indicate the extent of the defendant’s commercial activity regarding the making and distribution of the products, and thirdly, they would be helpful to the plaintiff’s expert in his assessment of the damages arising from the defendant’s use or sale of its products.

4 Under O 26 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court Cap 322, (R5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules”), the parties to any cause or matter may serve each other with interrogatories “relating to any matter in question” between them which are necessary either for “disposing fairly of the cause or matter” or “for saving costs”. Although the heading of a rule is generally not conclusive as to its proper interpretation, the heading of O 26 r 1, namely, “discovery by interrogatories”, is a helpful reminder of the nature of interrogatories. Interrogatories are one of the ways in which parties to a cause may be compelled to make disclosures of documents and facts not otherwise known or available to the other parties. Although the Rules do not expressly prohibit the service of interrogatories after the trial has...