TAN TSE HAW v PEH TIAN SWEE & Anor

TAN TSE HAW v PEH TIAN SWEE & Anor

The claimant's verified affidavits and supplementary lists were conclusive at the interlocutory stage and the 'plain and obvious' threshold for finding non-compliance was not met for the Category 1 and Category 2 documents (including job orders/job cards); the Assistant Registrar erred in making the unless order and it was set aside.

Citation
[2025] SGHC 113
Parties
Claimant: Tan Tse Haw; 1st Defendant: Peh Tian Swee; 2nd Defendant: Vfix Auto Private Limited
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
24 June 2025
Case Number
HC/OC 158/2024 ( HC/RA 85/2025 )
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim (oppression Under S 216 Companies Act) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Assistant Registrar's Unless Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's unless order set aside; claimant's Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim were not struck out
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Non Compliance With Production Orders, Unless Orders, Discovery Obligations, Interpretation of Disclosure Scope
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Company Law Evidence/discovery Production of Documents Non Compliance With Production Orders Unless Orders Discovery Obligations Interpretation of Disclosure Scope

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Tse Haw

Claimant

Peh Tian Swee

1st Defendant

Vfix Auto Private Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Claim (oppression Under S 216 Companies Act) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Assistant Registrar's Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant complied with the Production Order
  2. 2 Whether it was plain and obvious that the requested documents existed or were in the claimant's control
  3. 3 Whether 'job orders' in the Production Order included internal 'job cards'

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's verified affidavits and supplementary lists were conclusive at the interlocutory stage and the 'plain and obvious' threshold for finding non-compliance was not met for the Category 1 and Category 2 documents (including job orders/job cards); the Assistant Registrar erred in making the unless order and it was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Assistant Registrar's unless order set aside; claimant's Statement of Claim and Reply and Defence to Counterclaim were not struck out

Orders

  • Assistant Registrar's order dated 4 April 2025 (SUM 299) set aside
  • First defendant to pay costs here and below fixed at $10,200 inclusive of disbursements