Soh Lup Chee and Others v Seow Boon Cheng and Another

Soh Lup Chee and Others v Seow Boon Cheng and Another

Given the long record of repeated incomplete compliance, documentary anomalies in the BBS that necessarily imply existing source documents, and the absence of any credible explanation on oath that such documents are lost or destroyed, the court may infer non‑production and compel production; rather than immediately...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] SGHC 64
Parties
Plaintiffs: Soh Lup Chee and Others; First Defendant: Seow Boon Cheng; Second Defendant: UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
1 April 2002
Case Number
Suit 106/2001, RA 37/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Discovery and Strike Out (company Valuation/fraud Claim) / Interlocutory Appeal From Assistant Registrar
Outcome
Appeal allowed; court granted an unless order in terms of plaintiffs' prayer 2 with time for compliance extended to 14 days; defence was not struck out at this stage
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Affidavits of Documents, Striking Out Defence, Unless Order, Valuation Dispute, Alleged Fraud
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Company Law Evidence Discovery of Documents Affidavits of Documents Striking Out Defence Unless Order Valuation Dispute +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Soh Lup Chee and Others

Plaintiffs

Seow Boon Cheng

First Defendant

UEM Genisys Sdn Bhd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Discovery and Strike Out (company Valuation/fraud Claim) / Interlocutory Appeal From Assistant Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavits verifying lists of documents are conclusive at interlocutory stage
  2. 2 Whether the defendants materially failed to comply with discovery orders by withholding source/supporting documents for Balance Budget Summaries (BBS)
  3. 3 Whether such non-compliance justifies striking out the defence

Ratio Decidendi

Given the long record of repeated incomplete compliance, documentary anomalies in the BBS that necessarily imply existing source documents, and the absence of any credible explanation on oath that such documents are lost or destroyed, the court may infer non‑production and compel production; rather than immediately strike out the defence the court exercised discretion to make an unless order requiring full compliance within a limited period (14 days) and ordered costs against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; court granted an unless order in terms of plaintiffs' prayer 2 with time for compliance extended to 14 days; defence was not struck out at this stage

Orders

  • Defendants to comply with paragraphs 1 to 7 of the court order dated 9 July 2001 (as amplified) in accordance with plaintiffs' prayer 2 within 14 days of the order
  • Costs here and below to be taxed if not agreed and paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs