CIV 3 - Pre-Trial Preparation PDF

00:06 This is an overview of what this lecture will cover. First, we start with pre-trial preparations. These are steps each party needs to complete in order to be ready for trial. In addition to the various logistical requirements that are contained in the rules of court and practice directions, w...

00:06 This is an overview of what this lecture will cover. First, we start with pre-trial preparations. These are steps each party needs to complete in order to be ready for trial. In addition to the various logistical requirements that are contained in the rules of court and practice directions, we will cover the process of gathering and preparing the evidence necessary for a party to present its case at trial. 00:35 we will cover the trial process, specifically the attendance of witnesses and parties, as well as the order of proceedings at trial. Lastly, we will cover interim reliefs. These are orders parties may seek to ensure provisional justice or to hold the balance pending the conclusion of the trial on the merits. 01:05 Broadly speaking, much of what occurs after the pleadings are settled constitutes some form of trial preparation. Order 9, Rule 25.1 provides that the court must give directions for the case to proceed to trial at the appropriate stage. The appropriate stage for trial directions to be given is usually after the pleadings are filed and after key interrogatory applications have been disposed of. 01:34 the fixing of trial dates, the dates by which parties must confirm the witnesses they will be calling, the date by which parties will be filing the AEICs, and the dates by which the claimant must set down the action for trial. While trial directions are therefore usually made at a later stage of the proceedings, decisions on what fact witnesses you intend to call and what type of expert evidence you intend to lead should be taken early on in the case. 02:03 as that would guide strategic decisions taken throughout the matter and not just at the trial. In this section, we will focus on two key aspects of trial preparations. First, preparation of the related evidence for trial. We will focus on witness evidence as opposed to documentary evidence, which was covered in the earlier lecture on document production. 02:30 we will focus on fact and expert evidence put forward by the parties. While the syllabus also refers to independent witnesses, interested non-parties and independent counsel who were previously referred to as amicus curi, those are not the focus of this lecture. 02:50 After that, we will then briefly touch on trial logistics and setting down. These become more relevant only as parties move closer to the trial date. In civil proceedings, the general method for inducing a witness\'s testimony at trial is by way of the Epidavit of Evidence-in-Chief or AEIC for short. This is provided for in Order 15, Rule 16.1 and is applicable to both fact and expert witnesses. 03:20 As stated in Rule 16-2, dispensation will only be granted in special cases. One such special case may be where an order to attend court is served to compel an individual to testify at trial. This was previously referred to as the subpoena procedure under the old rules of court and is a topic we will cover in a later slide. The AEIC procedure is designed to reduce surprises at trial. 03:50 as well as to save time and costs. It reduces surprises because each party will know beforehand the witnesses the opposing side will call, as well as the substance of the evidence of that witness. Note in this regard Order 15 Rule 16-4 which restricts the witness to the parameters of his or her AEIC save in relation to matters that post-date the AEIC. 04:20 The procedure also saves time and costs by streamlining the trial process. Instead of having each witness take the stand to give lengthy oral evidence, they would only need to confirm the contents of their written AEICs under oath. After the witness confirms the contents of his AEIC under oath, he or she will then be 04:51 In this regard, Rule 16.3 requires the physical attendance of all witnesses for cross-examination. As a general rule, if a witness fails to attend trial for this purpose, the AEIC cannot be received in evidence. 05:10 The drafting and preparation of AEICs is typically one of the most tedious aspects of trial preparation. Depending on the complexity of the case, several rounds of meetings with the witnesses may have to be arranged in order to gather from them the necessary information and material. Before the COVID crisis changed the world, many of these meetings would have taken place physically. In the post-COVID landscape, 05:39 lawyers have had to retool and get comfortable with undertaking such information gathering by remote means. Once you have obtained all the necessary information and material, and arrive at the drafting stage of an AIC, take note of Order 15, Rule 16-5, which preserves the rules of evidence on admissibility. For example, the rule against hearsay evidence. 06:08 You should therefore ensure that the AEIC contains no inadmissible evidence and also none of the matters prohibited under Rule 25 too. If it does, the other party is entitled to file objections under Rule 16.6 and the relevant portion of the AEIC can be disregarded by the trial judge. You should also familiarise yourself with Order 15, Rule 19. 06:36 concerning formalities of affidavits. The Supreme Court practice directions also set out further requirements as to the proper form and contents of AEIC. The relevant paragraphs are listed in the slide, and you should read them. It is important to ensure compliance with these practice directions in order to avoid rejection of the document by the court. That would incur additional costs for your client. 07:04 as you would have to regularise the document and have it refiled again with an additional set of filing fees. Order 12 deals with experts who have been engaged either by parties or appointed by the court to give evidence and litigation. Note that changes have been made to the procedures concerning the use of expert evidence as compared to the previous practice under the old rules of court. 07:33 Order 12 Rule 2 now places restrictions on the use of expert evidence by providing in sub-rule 1 that the Court\'s permission and approval is now first needed. Sub-rules 2 and 3 then set out a two-stage test for the admission of expert evidence. First, the evidence must contribute materially to the determination of the issues at stake. 08:01 Such evidence must concern an issue which cannot be resolved by some form of agreement between the parties or based on mutually agreed material. For example, the answer to an issue of foreign law, which previously had to be proven by way of foreign law expert evidence, may be readily apparent based on uncontroversial statements in a foreign law statute book. 08:29 that the court must not in such a case approve the use of expert evidence. If you intend to adduce expert evidence in support of your client\'s case, you must therefore be prepared to clearly explain the following points to the court. First, what are the issues the expert will be addressing? Second, why would the expert\'s evidence materially contribute to the determination of those issues? 08:58 why those issues cannot be resolved either by agreement or based on uncontroversial materials. Timing wise, Order 9 Rule 21 provides that if parties intend to rely on expert evidence, this should be informed to the court during the case conference. Order 12 Rule 31 presents a further change in the procedure concerning the use of expert evidence. 09:27 as far as possible, agree on one common expert, rather than each feel their own experts. This change was essentially driven by efficiency concerns, as it was observed that a great amount of expense was involved where experts from opposite sides take diametrically opposed views on the issue, or where their evidence simply do not meet. 09:57 a court expert, either in addition to or in place of the party\'s experts. This ensures the court would still have access to the assistance needs whether the party\'s experts give contradictory evidence on technical questions or whether the party\'s experts\' evidence do not adequately assist. Take note of Order 12 Rule 1, Subs 2 and 3, which touch on the duties of an expert witness. 10:26 These are duties owed to the court, which override any obligation the expert might owe, vis-à-vis the party who is instructing him or her. In short, the evidence of an expert should be independent. This is a critical point to note as the court may decide not to give any weight to a report filed by an expert who is seen as a hired gun. You should always highlight this nature of the expert\'s duty. 10:53 to any expert engaged on your client\'s behalf, especially those from foreign jurisdictions who may be familiar with a different standard. The Court of Appeal in the Pacific Recreation case had in this regard stated that a solicitor has a positive duty to draw the attention of experts to their fundamental duty to the court and the relevant guidelines. 11:19 Apart from Pacific recreation, the guidelines concerning expert evidence have been further fleshed out in three other important cases listed in the syllabus. You should familiarise yourselves with the pronouncements therein. 11:35 Note specifically the discussion of the rule of prudence in Po Sun Kiat, which requires the court to carefully examine the correctness of the expert\'s premises and reasoning processes. This is even when the expert\'s evidence is unchallenged by the opposing party. This would also apply to the assessment of a court expert\'s evidence which the court is not obliged to accept. 12:03 You should also refer to the decision of HSBC and Toshin, where the Court of Appeals stressed that a failure by an expert to voluntarily disclose a prior significant relationship with an interested party in a timely fashion may give rise to serious concerns about his or her apparent or actual bias. This ties in with the expert\'s obviding duty owed to the court. After the AAICs have been prepared and finalized, 12:31 they must be served on all other parties. Order 9, rule 8.1 provides that the court can order AICs to be exchanged simultaneously or submitted sequentially. This will depend on what is suitable in each case. A direction for simultaneous exchange may be suitable to ensure that neither party would be in a position to seek some tactical advantage by delaying service until it has had the chance to preview. 12:59 the AEICs filed by the opposing side. A direction for sequential filings may, on the other hand, be more appropriate where it is necessary for a party to first review the parameters of the opposing party\'s evidence in order to respond. Take note that AEICs are not put in evidence by virtue of being exchanged and filed. They only become so when the relevant witnesses take the stand during trial to confirm their 13:31 After the exchange, parties may file objections to the opponent\'s AEICs at least 28 days before trial. As mentioned earlier, AEICs are not supposed to contain inadmissible, irrelevant or offensive material. Where they do, they would most likely become the subject of the other side\'s Notice of Objections, which will be adjudicated upon at the trial. 13:57 Sometimes, potential witnesses may be unwilling to come forward for various reasons. For example, they could be loyal to the party to whom the evidence would be detrimental to, or they may simply not wish to get involved. With that in mind, the relevant party may seek to compel the witness to give evidence by serving on him or her an order under Order 15, Rule 4. 14:25 These orders were previously called subpoenas, and they fall into two categories. First, where an order to attend court is served, the putative witness is compelled to come forward to give evidence orally at the trial. Second, where only an order to produce documents is served, the putative witness need not attend trial personally if he or she ensures that all the requested documents are produced. 14:54 This is stated in Order 15, Rule 4, Sub 7. Take note that there is an implied undertaking given by a party who obtains access to documents pursuant to this process that it will not use the information so obtained for purposes other than the further pursuance of the action. This is known as the Riddick Undertaking and it attaches to all documents that are produced under compulsion in the litigation process. 15:24 Because this undertaking is given to the court, a breach can be restrained by injunction or punished as a contempt. 15:34 The availability of this subpoena procedure reflects the importance of the general right of every litigant to bring all evidence relevant to his or her case to the court\'s attention. 15:47 As was the case under the old Rules of Court regime, the procedure involves two steps which were outlined in the case of Louse and Zanem. First, the parties seeking to compel the witness files the order in Form 29 with the court. Once the court seals this document, it can then be served on the relevant witness. Pursuant to Order 15, Rule 4, Sub 3, the order must then be personally served on the witness 16:16 within jurisdiction. This effectively means the procedure is limited to witnesses in Singapore only. The same provision also stipulates that service must take place at least 28 days before the trial. So the parties seeking to compel the assistance of the witness will have to plan in advance. Once the order is served, the first step is complete. In the second stage, any party can take out an application to have the order set aside 16:46 pursuant to Order 15, Rule 4, Subs 5 to 6. The substantive setting aside principles are discussed in the cases listed in your syllabus. Less commonly, the court may also make an order for the pretrial examination of persons when it appears necessary in the interest of justice, pursuant to Order 9, Rule 24. Such orders were previously called depositions and can be taken at any place within or outside of jurisdiction. 17:17 The remaining portions of Rule 24 prescribe the procedure for applying for such an order, and forcing it, as well as the manner in which such examination is to be conducted. Turning now to the second part of trial preparations, logistics and setting down. These become more relevant as the trial dates draw closer, at which point you should be familiar with the various steps and timelines provided for 17:44 under Order 9, Rule 25, as well as the relevant paragraphs in the Supreme Court practice directions. The key steps are listed on the slide. They may seem technical, but their importance should not be downplayed as failure to comply with them can result in serious consequences. For example, Rule 25, Sub 5 provides that where the claimant fails to set down, the defendant may proceed to do so or apply to the Court 18:12 to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. It is therefore good practice to have all the relevant timelines leading up to the trial calculated and keyed into the council team\'s calendar well in advance to ensure that the team does not default on any of the stipulated milestones. We turn now to the second section of this lecture concerning the trial proper. In reality, 18:39 Many cases settle before they reach this stage of proceedings. This section is concerned with the situation where there is no settlement and parties press ahead for trial. 18:51 We will focus on three topics concerning trial. First, the attendance of witnesses, and what happens when a witness is unable to physically attend. Second, the order of proceedings. And third, what happens where one or both parties are absent at the trial. 19:11 Earlier in this lecture, I highlighted this provision which requires a witness to physically attend trial for cross-examination in open court, feeling which his or her evidence would be disregarded. You will note that this rule is not however absolute. It provides that parties can in fact agree otherwise. In practice however, situations in which a party would agree to allow contested evidence to stand notwithstanding the absence of the witness will likely 19:41 be quite rare. A party may apply for its witness to attend the trial by way of video link, instead of physically. The application would be by way of summons supported by affidavit. Pursuant to Section 62A, sub 1 of the Evidence Act, the court has jurisdiction to allow evidence to be given by video link, where a. The witness is below the age of 16 b. There is an express agreement between parties to that effect c. 20:09 the witness is outside Singapore, or d, the court is satisfied that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. In deciding whether permission should be granted, the court is required under Section 62A sub 2 of the Evidence Act to consider all circumstances of the case. These include the reasons for the witness being unable to attend, b, the administrative and technical 20:39 facilities and arrangements made at the proposed location of the witness, and whether unfair prejudice would be caused to any party. 20:49 The leading cases on when the court would allow the use of such evidence are listed in your syllabus. You should peruse and familiarise yourself with all of them, among other things. In the case of Sonecker Industries, the Court of Appeals stated that the last name factor in Section 62A, Sub 2, Sub C in the Evidence Act, namely, the factor of unfair prejudice, is an overriding consideration in such applications. 21:18 since Section 62A sub 5 specifically provides that such an application should not be granted if the do-so would be inconsistent with the Court\'s duty to ensure that proceedings are conducted fairly to the parties to the proceedings. More recently, the distinction between a witness who is unable to attend trial and one who was unwilling to do so was examined by the Court of Appeal in Anil Singh Ghum. 21:48 That case concerned a witness who did not wish to enter jurisdiction for fear of arrest, and in that context, the Court of Appeal made three important findings. First, a witness who did not want to enter Singapore for fear of arrest should be considered unwilling, not unable to give evidence in Singapore. Second, the Court found that Section 62A sub 2 sub a of the Evidence Act 22:14 only covers situations where a witness is unable to attend proceedings in Singapore. 3. Nonetheless, a witness\'s unwillingness to travel did not preclude the possibility of leave being granted for evidence to be adduced by way of video link, and this was because the court should make a holistic assessment of the circumstances. A witness\'s unwillingness to travel was only one factor to be assessed against all other factors. 22:44 The other factors the Court considered to be relevant, and which pointed in favour of granting leave in that case, are set out in paragraph 42 of the judgment. Among other things, weight was placed on the importance of the witness\'s evidence, and the prejudice that the party calling him would otherwise suffer. This is a significant decision that you should read in full. We turn now to the order of proceedings at trial. 23:12 which Order 15 Rule 8 provides for. Usually, the trial will start off with the claimant\'s opening statement, and you should note in this regard that the rules of court and practice directions in fact require parties to file written versions of these before trial. The trial judge may sometimes therefore direct that the written statements be taken as read, in which case oral openings would be dispensed with. 23:40 After the claimant has opened its case, the claimant\'s witnesses will take the stand to be examined. The parameters for examination in chief, cross-examination and re-examination, including when leading questions may be asked, are set out in sections 139 to 145 of the Evidence Act. You will have the opportunity to try your hand at these during your practical course on advocacy. 24:07 After the claimant\'s witnesses have all been examined, the defendant may elect whether or not to adduce evidence. The defendant may elect not to do so, and to make a submission of no case to answer, where the claimant\'s evidence, taken at face value, fails to establish a case in law, or where the evidence led by the claimant is so unsatisfactory or unreliable that its burden of proof had not yet been discharged. 24:38 Once the defendant makes such an election, it is bound by it. The claimant can in that case proceed to close its case, and the defendant then states its case and in doing so must deal with the claimant\'s evidence as it stands. Note that cross-examination would not constitute the calling of evidence and the party making the election is not precluded from cross-examining the other side\'s witnesses. 25:07 If the submission of no case to answers upheld by the court, judgment will be entered for the defendant. Otherwise, judgment will be entered for the claimant. 25:19 You should bear in mind three important practice points regarding trial. First, the main part of the trial will be taken up by the examination of witnesses. Where the trial is lengthy, with numerous witnesses on each side, it is good practice for parties to discuss in advance with the other side, agree on the order in which witnesses for each side will be examined, and then update the court. This will facilitate the court\'s 25:47 and each party\'s preparation for the trial. Second, take note of Order 15, Rule 4, Sub 13. It provides that a non-party witness must remain outside the courtroom until he or she is called to testify. He or she may only remain in the courtroom after completing the testimony. This is to guard against the contamination of evidence. 26:15 On the issue of contamination of witnesses\' evidence, you should familiarise yourself with what is and what is not acceptable conduct when preparing your witnesses for trial. You can refer in this regard to the decision of Ernest Ferdinand for the Court of Appeals\' fairly recent pronouncements on the issue and the importance of ensuring that the witnesses\' evidence remains his or her own. This applies to both fact and expert witnesses. 26:43 You must bear these in mind when preparing witnesses for trial because improper conduct can not only adversely impact your client\'s case but can potentially also result in proceedings being brought against the solicitor himself. 26:59 Where the defendant elects to adduce evidence, it will deliver its opening statement after all of the claimant\'s witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the defendant\'s witnesses will be examined via the same process that the claimant\'s witnesses were put through before the defendant and then the claimant closed the respective cases. Where the trial is lengthy and complex, the court may prefer parties to prepare written closing submissions in lieu of oral closings. 27:29 this is the case, what usually happens is that after all evidence has been heard, a deadline would be given for parties to file the written closings. Depending on the circumstances, the court may direct these to be exchanged simultaneously or sequentially. Finally, we turn to what happens if a party is absent from trial. As a preliminary point, do note that appearance may be in person or by counsel. So a party is only considered absent. 27:57 if both the party and its counsel do not appear at trial. Where both parties are absent, Order 15 Rule 8.3 provides that the trial court may dismiss the claim and any counterclaim. Where the absence is by one party only, Rule 8.4 gives the court full discretion to either proceed with the trial in the absence of that party, or give judgement or dismiss the action without trial or to make any other order as it deems fit. 28:26 We turn now to the third and final section concerning interim reliefs. These are orders that the court may make in order to preserve the status quo, protect interim rights and ensure that the case can be fairly adjudicated at the trial. These are potentially powerful tools that can visit great pressure on the parties. You should therefore familiarise yourselves with both the principles and often fast-paced procedure concerning the grant of such measures. 28:54 There is a whole range of interim relieves that may be sought by a party to a cause or matter. We will cover some of the more common ones. Firstly, we look at interlocutory or interim injunctions, which are basically orders requiring a party to do or refrain from doing something prior to the full adjudication of the merits at trial. The terms interlocutory and interim are used interchangeably. Where the order directs the doing of a positive act, 29:23 it is said to be mandatory in nature. Where it forbids the commission or continuance of an act, it is said to be prohibitory in nature. An example is the Mareva Injunction, which is a relief designed to prevent a party from disposing of its assets so that any judgment against it will not go unsatisfied. We will next cover detention and preservation orders, search orders, and orders for the taking of samples 29:52 which may be necessary where for example there is danger of evidence being disposed of or removed by a party pending trial. The source of the Court\'s power to make such orders is statutory, and the relevant provisions are listed in the slide. 30:09 We deal first with Interim Injunctions. Order 13, Rule 3 provides that, where the application is urgent, the summons can be filed without notice to the defendant. There are some important matters to note when making such applications. First, take note of the Notice Requirements in Para 71 of the Practice Directions, pursuant to which the applicant is to give notice of the application to the other concerned parties prior to the hearing. 30:39 or with the permission of court, a minimum of 2 hours notice should be given, and this should provide information on the time and place fixed for the hearing and of the nature of the reliefs sought. This can be done by way of letter, email or even a phone call to your opposing counsel in cases of extreme urgency. The applicant is exempted from giving notice only where doing so would or might defeat the purpose of the without notice application. 31:07 For example, where the defendant would likely act swiftly to render the injunction application moot. Needless to say, an assertion to the effect must be substantiated. Second, take note of Para 73 of the practice directions. These provide the requirements of an affidavit filed in support of the without notice application. In this regard, it is tried that there is a duty on the part of the applicant to make 31:37 in the supporting affidavit. This is so as the Court\'s position as decision-maker may be said to be compromised where it hears the representations and arguments of the applicant in the absence of the other side. Knowing that there is no danger of rebuttal at the hearing, the applicant may be tempted to seek to exploit the situation by not disclosing certain facts that are unhelpful to its case. The imposition of this duty, to give full and frank disclosure, 32:06 is aimed at addressing that risk, and this duty is now expressly stated in Order 13, Rule 1, Subsection 5. You should take this duty very seriously. A breach of it is an independent ground for setting aside the injunction. The leading case on the topic is the Vasily Golubin, which discusses in detail the content of the duty and the manner of disclosure. On the letter point, 32:35 Take note that it is not open to the applicant to simply say that it has fulfilled the duty, simply because the relevant facts can be distilled from the voluminous documents exhibited to the affidavit. Material facts should be fairly stated in the text of the affidavit itself. Finally, take note that the court normally requires the applicant to apply promptly after becoming aware of the facts in relation to which it seeks protection. 33:05 A failure on the part of the applicant to move with real expedition would undercut this argument that the application is so urgent that it has to be dealt with by way of a without notice application. The guidelines concerning the grant of an interlocutory injunction has been set out in the leading case of American cyanide, which has been followed and expanded upon in a series of Singapore cases listed in the syllabus. The applicant must first show 33:33 that there is a serious question to be tried, i.e. that it has prospects of success which in substance and reality exist. Note in this regard that prospects of success is to be investigated only to a limited extent, and the threshold is low. The Court is not required to evaluate the chances of success in the action on a balance of probabilities. Once the Court is satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried, it will then 34:03 whether the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the injunction sought. The fundamental principle here is that the court should take whichever cause appears to carry the lower risk of injustice should it turn out to have been wrong at trial, in the sense of granting relief to a party who fails to establish its rights at trial, or of failing to grant relief to a party who succeeds at the trial. 34:31 While the court has the power to grant an interlocutory injunction unconditionally, it is usual for such orders to be made on the applicant\'s undertaking to abide by any subsequent court order as to damages that the defendant has sustained by reason of the injunction. Where it can be shown that the provision of an undertaking is insufficient, the court may order the applicant\'s undertaking to be fortified, for example, by the giving of security or by making payment into court. 35:02 This undertaking is given to the court and not to the party against whom the injunction was directed. If it is subsequently shown that the injunction ought not to have been granted, the party against whom the injunction was directed may apply to the court for the undertaking to be enforced. The syllabus has in this regard cited portions of the 2021 White Book, containing a comprehensive discussion on the undertaking as to damages. 35:31 The 2022 White Book has recently been released, and the corresponding sections which are useful for you to read are set out in the slide. We now turn to a specific type of interim injunctions. The Marable Injunction, which purpose is to restrain the dissipation or removal of assets by a defendant in order to defeat a potential judgement. One of the hazards facing a claimant and litigation is that come the day of judgement, it may not be able to 36:01 obtain satisfaction of the full award or part of it. By a Marever Injunction, which is basically a freezing order over assets, a defendant can be prevented from creating such a situation through its dissipation of assets in the meantime. The Marever Injunction may be local, i.e. covering assets within jurisdiction, or worldwide where the assets to be frozen are wholly or partly located abroad. 36:30 Respective forms are provided for these in Order 13, Rule 1, Subsections 6 and 7. The substantive principles concerning when the court would grant a Moravian injunction are discussed in detail in the cases and materials cited in the syllabus. The key principles are settled, but you will note from the cases that the application of them are highly fact-specific. In terms of procedure for applying, 36:59 It is the same as that for interlocutory injunctions generally, i.e. application by way of summons supported by affidavit which can be with or without notice in cases of urgency. Regardless of whether the application is with or without notice, such applications which are draconian will be heard by a judge and not a registrar. This is stated in Parag 72, sub 1 of the Supreme Court practice directions. 37:28 It may be necessary for the court to make ancillary orders to give effect to the Mareva Relief. For example, the applicant may need to obtain discovery from the defendant concerning the nature and or location of the defendant\'s assets. It is thus common for an order for discovery to be made to complement a Mareva order. Given the draconian nature of the Mareva Relief, the court will be especially concerned that 37:57 that it is not abused. It will not therefore countenance the use of the procedure as a tool to oppress the defendant or to, through an ancillary discovery order, extract information that the claimant would not otherwise be able to obtain. 38:15 Take note that while Marevo injunctions concern parties\' assets, they are different from proprietary injunctions. A proprietary injunction fustains on a specific asset and prevents the defendant from dealing with it. On the other hand, a Marevo injunction merely prevents the defendant from disposing of its pool of assets beyond a certain value. There is therefore no objection in principle. 38:43 a defendant being allowed to use assets subject to a MRAVA injunction, for example, for living expenses, as long as the purpose for which he requires the assets does not conflict with the policy underlying the MRAVA jurisdiction. An application can be made under Order 13 Rule 2 for the detention, custody or preservation of property, which is the subject matter of the cause of matter, or as to which any question may arise. 39:12 Rule 3 further provides for the possibility of obtaining an order for the taking of samples of any such property. These are essentially directed at the interim preservation of property and evidence. To obtain such orders, the applicant will need to demonstrate a danger of destruction to existing evidence. This is discussed in the case of UMCI and Tokyo Marine, cited in your syllabus. 39:40 the equivalent provision in the old rules of court, orders that seem rules 2 and 3 do not state that such orders may be made upon the application of any party. Under the new regime therefore, such orders can be made by the court on its own motion, without any application being filed by either party. Where a party is seeking such orders, the application should be made via summons supported by an affidavit. 40:09 A claimant may also consider applying for search orders, where there is a grave danger that the defendant will dispose of or destroy incriminating evidence in its possession. This complements the court\'s powers to grant orders for the detention, preservation and taking of samples of property. Such orders are commonly referred to as Enten Pillar Orders in practice, and they would enable the claimant or its representative to enter the defendant\'s premises to search for, inspect, 40:38 and seize material so that they may be preserved until the trial. As you can tell, such orders involve a serious interference with the defendant\'s privacy and can in the case of business premises seriously disrupt operations. Due to the draconian nature of such orders, there are remedies which are granted only where it is essential or necessary in the interest of justice and the requirements are generally very stringent. 41:08 In particular, the court will generally insist upon a clear showing of fraud, dishonesty, or imminent removal or destruction of property or evidence. These stringent requirements are fleshed out in the cases cited in the slide which you should read. In terms of procedure, Orders 13, Rule 1, which applies to interim injunctions, similarly apply to search orders. B24 CIVB24 CIV - Amendment of Pleadings (Only to OC proceedings) - Under the purview of SAPT (Order 9 Rule 9(4)(f)) Amendment by written agreement between the parties 14 days before trial (ORder 9 Rule 14(5)) - Note that such an amendment may only be made not **[less than 14 days before commencement of the trial]** - Amendment with Court\'s permission (Order 9 Rule 14(1)) Amendments will be allowed if the Court finds that these amendments enable the real question in controversy between the parties to be determined. The threshold is not very high but costs may need to be awarded for wasted work. ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - - Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield Interna\^onal (Hong Kong) Ltd \[2014\] 3 SLR 524 at \[116\]--\[119\] - - - - - - - - - Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong \[2010\] 1 SLR 52 at \[113\]--\[114\] - - - - - - - - Amendment after deadline expiry limited to certain circumstances (Order 9 Rule 14(4)) **[\[Limitation period\]]** **[First,]**is where this amendment is to correct the name of a party. 00:32:19 If that was a genuine mistake and it is not misleading as to the identity of the party question. 00:32:28 The **[second]** is where the amendment relates to altering the capacity in which the party sues. If, from the start, the party might have sued in that capacity anyway. 00:32:42 And **[third]** and that\'s something I will elaborate on a little bit more where the amendment is to add or substitute a new course of action if the new course of action ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- a. b. c. - One must first determine whether the amendment will prejudice the other parties limitation defense and what does it mean by that? There are various types of amendments that can be made to pleadings. There are certain amendments which are amendments to correct clerical errors, correct typos, amendments to correct the names of the parties (). ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - - If everything arises from the same or **[substantially the same set of facts]** that has been pleaded right from the outset. There is no prejudice to the defendant. - - - Amendments **[made less than 14 days before trial]** must show that the no prejudice not suffered by the other party **[\[High threshold]**\] You need to justify why you were not able to do so earlier. You need to show that there would be no prejudice caused to the defendant or **[how you\'re going to remedy that Prejudice]**. You need to show what is the prejudice that will be caused to yourself if you are not allowed to amend and the court will consider all of it and see if the very high threshold of a special case is met in these circumstances. ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - The court may take the view that the original certification of truth has some issue, or the court may take the view that this amendment, the material fact, may not be a true amendment, may be an afterthought, maybe something that is, you know, just just thought of later after the proceedings have. ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - Striking out - **[Striking out falls within SAPT]** Permission is **[not required]** to file the application if the application is to strike out the **[entire action or defence]** (Order 9 Rule 9(7)(h)) - Application to **[strike out part]** of an action or defence to be dealt with under the **[SAPT]**. (Order 9 Rule 9(4)(h)) **[Grounds for striking out (Order 9 Rule 16)]** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. a. b. c. - - No reasonable cause of action (Gabriel Peter & Partners) (Order 9 Rule 16(1)(a)) - - - Abuse of process (Gabriel Peter & Partners) (Order 9 Rule 16(1)(b)) - - - - - - As long as the statement of claim discloses some cause of action, or **[raises some question fit to be decided at the trial]**, the mere fact that the case is weak and is not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. Where a statement of claim is defective only in not containing particulars to which the defendant is entitled, the application should be made for particulars under O 18 r 12 and not for an order to strike out the statement. ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and ors \[2022\] SGHC 309 at \[23\] - In the interest of justice (Order 9 Rule16(1)(c)) - court to strike out pleadings when it is in the interests of justice to do so. The Judge agreed with the AG that this gives effect to the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice, such as where the claim is plainly or obviously unsustainable - Proceedings are **[frivolous]** when they are **[deemed to waste the court's time, and are determined to be incapable of legally sustainable and reasoned argument]** Proceedings are **[vexatious]** when they are **[shown to be without foundation and/or where they cannot possibly succeed and/or where an action is brought only for annoyance or to gain some fanciful advantage.]** - - - - - - - - Summary Judgement - **[summary judgement falls outside of SAPT]** **[Only applicable to OC]** **[Permission is not required to file the application]** (Order 9 Rule 9(7)(g)) - When should application for summary judgement be brought? (**[Order 9 Rule 17(1)]** and 17(13) - [ ] **After Defence served \< Application for summary judgement \< [28 days]**[)] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - Applies also to a counterclaim -- ie, the defendant bringing a counterclaim may apply for summary judgment. see Order 9 Rule 17(11) to (13). - Procedure: **[has to include all evidence that is necessary or material to the claim /counterclaim in the supporting affidavit]**: - Principles - **[Mere assertion, denial or dispute in the affidavit is not enough. The Applicant must show a prima facie case. The Respondent must show that there is a fair or reasonable probability that the Respondent has a real or bona fide defense.]** 1. 2. 3. 4. a. b. 1. - **[Orders - Scenarios:]** ªDismiss the application. if fall below prima facie case ªGrant permission to defend without any conditions. because the issue cannot be dealt with summarily ªGrant judgment to the applicant. ªGrant permission to defend with conditions if the defence or any issue raised therein is of a dubious nature. The court is not convinced by the shaky defence. The payment into court of some form of security for the claim. The contrast this with security for cost security for cost relates to the amount of cost that is likely to be incurred or that is likely to be ordered at the end of the day. This condition usually relates to payment of security to secure the claim amount ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - Decisions on questions of law or construction of documents - **Court may make a decision on a question or law or on construction of a document without a trial or hearing on the facts, whether or not the decision will fully determine the action [(Order 9 Rule 19)]** 1. 2. - UOB v Lippo \[**[threshold requirements]**\] **The defendant has entered an appearance in the action; The parties have an opportunity of being heard on the question of law; The question of law is suitable for determination [without a full trial of the action]; and [Such determination will fully determine (subject only to any possible appeal) the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein].** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - - General (Order) for Production of documents - Definition of what are \"documents\" in section 3 of the Evidence Act 1893. - "document" includes, in addition to a document in writing --- (a) any map, plan, graph or drawing; (b) any photograph; (c) any label, marking or other writing which identifies or describes anything of which it forms a part, or to which it is attached by any means whatsoever; (d) any disc, tape, soundtrack or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; (e) any film (including microfilm), negative, tape, disc or other device in which one or more visual images are embodied so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and (f) any paper or other material on which there are marks, impressions, figures, letters, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; - **[Legal considerations for ordering Discovery of Electronic documents]** (d) the ease and expense of retrieval of any particular electronically stored document or class of electronically stored documents, including -- (i) the accessibility, location and likelihood of locating any relevant documents, (ii) the costs of recovering and giving discovery and inspection of any relevant documents, (iii) the likelihood that any relevant documents will be materially altered in the course of recovery, or the giving of discovery or inspection; and ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - Court\'s power (ORder 11 Rule 1) Factors considered: (i) a claimant is to sue and proceed on the strength of its case and not on the weakness of the defendant's case; and (ii) a party who sues or is sued in court does not thereby give up its right to privacy and confidentiality in the party's documents and communications. ­It will be in the interests of justice to allow a broader scope of discovery if such broader discovery could aid in disposing fairly of the proceedings: see Order 11 Rule 1(4). - it\'s not a must that this order is made, but typically if AEICs are not ordered to be done before production of documents, **[typically there will be general production of documents before SAPT]** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - Timeline (Order 11 Rule 2(1)): within 14 days from the order - Scope of production (Order 11 Rule 2(1)(a)(b)(c)) All documents that the party in question will be **[relying]** on Order 11, Rule 2(1)(a) All known **[adverse]** documents Order 11, Rule 2(1)(b) Any **[other documents]** that come within the scope of any broader discovery that is **[agreed or ordered]** by the Court Order 11, Rule 2(1)(c) ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - **[Specific Documents]** may be ordered to be produced upon request (ORder 11 Rule 3(1)) Criteria: (i) **[properly identifies]** the requested documents; and (ii) shows that the requested documents are **[material to the issues in the case].** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - Send a letter to the other party first Usually no specific production of documents until AEICs are exchanged (except special case) If the disclosing party refuese, then seek order from court - General Power to order production (Order 11 Rule 4) - **[Limitations on productions (Order 11 Rule 5)]** Unless it is a special case: No train of inquiry documents No private/internal correspondences (unless know adverse documents) ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - **[Production must be based on the strenght of C\'s case, not weakness of D\'s case (Order 11 Rule 1(2))]** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - **[Continuing duty to produce]**: see Order 11 Rule 6 of the ROC 2021 (note the timeline of 14 days after the document came into the party's possession or control). ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - **[Consequences of non-compliance]** with a production order: see Order 11 Rule 7 of the ROC 2021. **order that the action be dismissed or that the defence be struck out and judgment be entered accordingly; draw an adverse inference or make any such order as the Court deems fit; punish that party for contempt of court if the order has been served on that party's solicitor, but it is open to that party to show that that party was not notified or did not know about the order; or order that that party may not rely on any document that is within the scope of the order unless the Court approves.** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- a. b. c. d. - Confidentiality is not a basis for withholding or objecting to production of documents: see Order 11 Rule 9 of the ROC 2021. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | \(1) A party who is required by any order made by the Court under | | this Order to produce documents **[may not withhold or object to | | the produc\^on] of any document on the ground that the | | document is confiden\^al.** | +=======================================================================+ | **(2) A confiden\^al document does not lose its confiden\^ality even | | if it was disclosed or taken inadvertently or unlawfully by anyone.** | | | |   | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ - Restriction on the use of proceedings in other proceedings except with party consent or with the Court's approval: see Order 11 Rule 10(1) of the ROC 2021. ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | \(1) Any document produced under this Order or by compulsion of law | | in the court proceedings **must not be relied on in other | | proceedings by the other par\^es or non-par\^es unless the party | | who produced the document consents or the Court otherwise | | approves.** | +=======================================================================+ |   | | | |   | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ - The party who produced the document may **[apply for an order prohibiting the use of the documents for any purpose other than the case in which production was given]**: see Order 11 Rule 10(2) of the ROC 2021. ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - Inspection of originals upon request: see Order 11 Rule 12 of the ROC 2021. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | **(1) If a party requests to inspect the original of any document | | produced, the party who produced the document must arrange a mutually | | convenient \^me and place for the inspec\^on to take place.** | +=======================================================================+ | \(2) Such inspec\^on **[must take place within 14 days a\^er the | | request unless the par\^es otherwise agree.]** | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | \(3) If the party who produced the document fails to comply with | | paragraph (1) or (2), **the reques\^ng party may apply to the Court | | to compel that party to do so.** | | | |   | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ - Trial - 1\. Pre-trial Preparation (Part IV of Syllabus) - Setting down (Order 9 Rule 25(1)) - O 9 r 25(4): time for setting down by claimant to be fixed O 9 r 25(6)-(8): form, content and service of Notice for Setting Down O 9 r 25(9) and para 102 of Supreme Court PD: further documents to be filed Para 99 of Supreme Court PD: filing of lead counsel's statement - **[Witnesses evidence by AEIC]** (Order 15 Rule 16) - "(1) As a general rule, the trial in an originating claim... must be decided on the basis of the witnesses' affidavits of evidence-in-chief, cross-examination, re-examination and on oral or written submissions. (2) In a special case, the Court may allow a witness' evidence-in-chief to be given orally instead of by affidavit of evidence-in-chief. (3) An affidavit of evidence-in-chief may not be used if the maker does not attend Court for cross-examination, unless the parties otherwise agree. (4) An affidavit of evidence-in-chief must contain all material facts which may not be departed from or supplemented by new facts in oral evidence unless the new facts occurred after the date of making the affidavit of evidence-in-chief." - Simulataneous exchange of AEIC (O9 r8(1)) Objections to contents of AEIC (O15 r16(6) and Paragraph 84 Supreme Court PD) - **[Expert Evidence]** (O12 r2) - "(1) No expert evidence may be used in Court unless the Court approves. (2) The parties must consider whether expert evidence will contribute materially to the determination of any issue that relates to scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge and whether such issue can be resolved by an agreed statement of facts or by submissions based on mutually agreed materials. (3) The Court must not approve the use of expert evidence unless it will contribute materially to the determination of any issue in the case and the issue cannot be resolved in the manner stated in paragraph (2). (4) The Court may disallow the use of or reject any expert evidence if it is of the opinion that the expert lacks the requisite specialised knowledge in the issues referred to him or her or that he or she lacks impartiality". Duty of the Expert (O12 r1(2)-(3)) - \(a) the complete instructions which were given to the expert; (b) a statement of facts leading to the expert's opinion; (c) the facts known by the expert to be true; (d) the facts which the expert was instructed to assume; and (e) the facts which the expert had assumed. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ~-~ | It is a requirement under O 40A r | | | 3(2)(c) of the Rules that **the | | | expert's report contains "a | | | statement se\^ng out the issues | | | which he has been asked to | | | consider and the basis upon which | | | the evidence was given". Form 58 | | | fleshes out the details that | | | should be provided, as follows:** | | | | | | **- (a) the complete instruc\^ons | | | which were given to the expert;** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ - - - - 1. -  **In such circumstances, the appellate court is entitled to undertake its own evaluation to determine whether the trial judge's inferential findings are justified by the facts. In an appropriate case, the appellate court is also entitled to examine the underlying facts to see whether there is any evidence to support the expert testimony in question.** - - - - - - - - - as a matter of legal principle, **if an expert or an adjudicator has, prior to the relevant appointment, been recently approached by one of the directly-interested parties to give a professional opinion or adjudicate on a matter, the expert or adjudicator concerned ought to make this known as soon as practicable to the others involved in the appointment process.** - - - - **[Witnesses]** - Order to attend court or produce documents (O15 r4(1)) **[Riddick principle :] The courts should, therefore, not allow the other party -- or anyone else -- to use the documents for any ulterior or alien purpose. Otherwise, the court themselves would be doing injustice** ------- ---------------------------------------- Flags Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- ---------------------------------------- - - - - - Pre-Trial Examination (O9 r24) Rule 24(1) allows a party to apply for the evidence of a witness in an action to be recorded at a pre-trial examination in circumstances where it may not be possible to obtain the witness's evidence at the trial of the action. - **2. The Trial (Part V of Syllabus)** - Attendance of witnesses at trial (O15 r16(3)) - Evidence by video link s62A Evidence Act - **The Court stated that [prejudice] is the overriding factor in considering an O 38 r 1 application and the Court had a duty to ensure that the proceedings were fair to both par\^es. One important consideration is if the other party would be [taken by surprise.]** - - - - - - - - **The Court held that if [sufficient reason] was given as to why the actual physical presence of a foreign witness could not be effected, the court should [lean in favour of permi\^ng] video link evidence in lieu of the normal rule of physical tes\^mony.** If a witness is **[not normally a resident in Singapore]** then that itself may afford sufficient reason to grant the applica\^on to save costs - - - - - - **his (the withness) [only reason for testifying by video link was that it was inconvenient to give evidence in Singapore as he worked in Shanghai and did not travel to Singapore often]. [This alone was not sufficient,] especially when considered against the fact that it is important that a witness give important evidence in person so that the proceedings are conducted fairly. Hence, the court did not grant leave for Mr Lee to testify by video link.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (where the Court considered the witness' unwillingness to attend trial physically as a non-determinative factor relevant to the question of whether leave should be granted for him/her to testify via video link), - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - where an application was made for the giving of evidence via video-link arising out of COVID-19-related travel restrictions), - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - where the court cautioned against blindly citing the pandemic as a reason as to why a witness is unable to testify physically at trial). - - - - - - - - - - Order of proceedings - Claimant\'s Opening Examination of Claimant\'s witnesses - Witness preparation should not be training/ coaching (Ernest Ferdinand) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Examination Cross-Examination Re-examination - Claimant\'s Closing Defendant states his/her case - \"No case to Answer\" O15 r8(11) 11. a. b. c. d. e. - Defendant\'s opening Examination of Defendant\'s witnesses - Examination Cross-examination Re-examination Defendant\'s closing Claimant\'s closing - ** Absence of party at trial** - **[Only if both the defendant and counsel are absent may a default judgment be entered against the defendant. Similarly, if the plaintiff is absent but his counsel is present when an action is called on for hearing, the court cannot just dismiss the action but must allow the plaintiff's counsel to present his case and call witnesses if he has any in support. \[emphasis added\]]** - **[If none of the parties attends Court when the trial begins]**, **the Court may dismiss the claim and any counterclaim.** - **[If one of the parties does not attend Court when the trial begins]**, **the Court may proceed with the trial or give judgment against or dismiss the claim of the absent party or make any other appropriate order.** - 3\. **[Interim Reliefs]** (Part VI of Syllabus) **[BEFORE Trial]** - Potential interim measures a party may seek (Source of Court's power: s 4(10) Civil Law Act; s 18(2) and First Schedule (paragraph 5) SCJA; ss 31-32 State Courts Act): - Interlocutory / interim injunctions (including Mareva injunction) (O13 r1(3)) - Supporting affidavit explaining the urgency (Para 71 PD ) 1. 2. a. b. c. 3. - Affidavit requirement (Para 73 PD) 1. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 2. 3. - Was there full and frank disclosure (Vasilly Golovin) - - - - Procedure for urgent hearing (para 85 PD) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. - Principles for grant (American Cyan): (1) Was there a serious question to nbe trialled, (2) balance of convenience only considered if there is doubt as to the adequacy of damages - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mareva Injunction (Freezing order) O13 r1(6) &(7) - Purpose: to prevent disspation of assets Procedure: 6. 7. 2. - Note specific requirements in para 72 Supreme Court PD 2. 3. - Ancillary orders Do not confuse with proprietary injunctions -- see eg Ernest Ferdinand v Compañía De Navegación Palomar, SA and others \[2020\] SGCA 24 at \[58\]-\[60\] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Principles for grant: **[(1) there is a valid cause of action over which the court has jurisdiction;] [(2) there is a good arguable case on the merits of the claimant's claim;] [(3) the defendant has assets within the jurisdiction; and] [(4) there is a real risk that the defendant will dissipate his assets to frustrate the]** ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Flags  Risk; \[\"mmStockIconFlagRed\", \"\"\] ------- -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - - - - - Detention, preservation and search orders; orders for the taking of samples - Detention Order - Detention and preservation orders: O 13 r 2 [Order 13, Rule 2] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **(1) The Court may order the deten\^on, custody or preserva\^on of any property which is the subject** **ma\^er of or may give rise to issues in an ac\^on.** \(2) **The Court may order the inspec\^on of any such property in the possession or control of a party.** **(3) The Court may authorise any person to enter upon any immovable property in the possession or** **control of any party to effect any order made under paragraphs (1) and (2).** **(4) Where there is a dispute as to the right of any party to a specific fund, the Court may order the** **fund to be paid into Court or otherwise secured.** - Orders for taking of samples: O 13 r 3 1. a. b. 2. - Was there any danger of destruction? (Tokio Marine) - - - - - - +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **A danger of destruc\^on of |   | | exis\^ng evidence must be | | | shown.** |   | +===================================+===================================+ | **The property must be in | | | existence during the \^me of the | | | applica\^on and applies only to** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **physical items, not choses in | | | ac\^on.** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ - - - - - Procedure: summons supported by affidavit - Search Order (O13 r1) - Principles of grant: - Computerland Corp v Yew Seng Computers Pte Ltd \[1991\] 2 SLR(R) 379; - - - - Bengawan Solo Pte Ltd v Season Confectionary Co Pte Ltd \[1994\] 1 SLR(R) 448; - - - - - - - Asian Corp Services (SEA) Pte Ltd v Eastwest Management Ltd (Singapore Branch) \[2006\] 1 SLR(R) 901 - - - - - - - - - - - Procedure: O 13 r 1 of ROC, para 73 of Supreme Court Practice Directions 1. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 2. 3.