DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 10 (14 April 2025)

DNO v DNP [2025] SGHC(I) 10 (14 April 2025)

Leave to file the further affidavit was granted because the affidavit was relevant to the standing issue, the delay was not for tactical advantage, the prejudice to the applicant if leave was refused would be significant, and the prejudice to the respondent was minimal. Compliance with procedural rules is important, but in this case, the trial date would not be affected and fairness required granting leave. The respondent's rights to challenge the admissibility or weight of the affidavit at trial were preserved.

Citation
[2025] SGHC(I) 10
Parties
Applicant: DNO; Respondent: DNP
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit
Outcome
Leave granted to applicant to file further affidavit; respondent granted leave to file affidavit in response; costs reserved to hearing.
Legal Topics
Recourse Against Arbitral Award, Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Standing to Challenge Award, Leave to File Further Affidavit
Arbitration Civil Procedure Recourse Against Arbitral Award Setting Aside Arbitral Award Standing to Challenge Award Leave to File Further Affidavit

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DNO

Applicant

DNP

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Interlocutory Application for Leave to File Further Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant should be granted leave to file a further affidavit in support of its application to set aside an arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether the further affidavit is relevant to the issues in the case
  3. 3 Whether discretionary factors, including delay and compliance with procedural rules, favour a grant of leave

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the further affidavit was granted because the affidavit was relevant to the standing issue, the delay was not for tactical advantage, the prejudice to the applicant if leave was refused would be significant, and the prejudice to the respondent was minimal. Compliance with procedural rules is important, but in this case, the trial date would not be affected and fairness required granting leave. The respondent's rights to challenge the admissibility or weight of the affidavit at trial were preserved.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to applicant to file further affidavit; respondent granted leave to file affidavit in response; costs reserved to hearing.

Orders

  • Applicant granted leave to file executed copy of Mr [A]'s affidavit by 14 April 2025, subject to respondent's rights to challenge admissibility, weight, or sufficiency at hearing.
  • Respondent granted leave to file affidavit in response by 18 April 2025.