Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others

Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another v Ho Chin Nguang and others

The appeal is dismissed because the account books at items 101–103 were properly described as bundles of documents of the same nature (company accounts) satisfying O 24 r 3; the defendants complied with discovery by permitting inspection and copying under O 24 r 9; there is no basis at the discovery stage to order certified translations under O 92 r 1 since translation is required only when documents are to be received, filed or used and the onus to translate lies on the party who intends to rely on them.

Citation
[2010] SGHC 139
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another; Defendant/respondent: Ho Chin Nguang and others
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
5 May 2010
Case Number
Suit No 285 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 137 of 2010)
Procedural Posture
Civil Discovery Appeal (suit No 285 of 2009; Registrar's Appeal No 137 of 2010) / Appeal From Assistant Registrar's Decision (judgment Reserved; Decision Dated 05 May 2010)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Assistant Registrar upheld
Legal Topics
List of Documents, Further and Better List, Translation of Documents, Order 24 R 3, Order 92 R 1
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Discovery Evidence Commercial/company Law List of Documents Further and Better List Translation of Documents Order 24 R 3 +1 more

Case Brief

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Shieh-Peen Clement and another

Plaintiff/appellant

Ho Chin Nguang and others

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Discovery Appeal (suit No 285 of 2009; Registrar's Appeal No 137 of 2010) / Appeal From Assistant Registrar's Decision (judgment Reserved; Decision Dated 05 May 2010)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' list of documents complied with Order 24 r 3 when account books were listed as bundled 'accounts'
  2. 2 Whether a further and better list identifying each invoice/receipt was required
  3. 3 Whether defendants were obliged at discovery stage to provide certified English translations of non-English documents

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the account books at items 101–103 were properly described as bundles of documents of the same nature (company accounts) satisfying O 24 r 3; the defendants complied with discovery by permitting inspection and copying under O 24 r 9; there is no basis at the discovery stage to order certified translations under O 92 r 1 since translation is required only when documents are to be received, filed or used and the onus to translate lies on the party who intends to rely on them.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Assistant Registrar upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; costs to defendants to be taxed or agreed