Bing Integrated Construction Pte Ltd v Eco Special Waste Management Pte Ltd (Chua Tiong Guan and Another, Third Parties) and Another Suit

[1] This was an appeal by the defendant against the decision of Assistant Registrar Tan Wen Shan (“the AR”) refusing the defendant’s applications against the plaintiff and the second third party for discovery of documents.

[2] The plaintiff commenced these two actions against Eco Special Waste Management Pte Ltd and Eco Resource Recovery Centre Pte Ltd respectively, claiming some $800,000 and some $1.5m against the respective defendants. The two actions were consolidated pursuant to an order of court made on 5 September 2007.

[5] Before the consolidation of these two suits, the defendants took out Summons No. 2946 of 2007 in Suit No. 605 of 2006 and Summons No. 2947 of 2007 in Suit No. 606 of 2006 seeking discovery and production of 19 categories of documents set out in a schedule (“the schedule”) to the said summonses. The documents sought included shop drawings, quotations, subcontracts, delivery orders, progress reports, photographs, organisation charts, architect’s and engineer’s instructions and invoices.

[7] After hearing the parties’ arguments, the AR ruled as follows:

The AR also ordered the defendants to pay costs of $2,200 (inclusive of disbursements) to the plaintiff and costs of $1,900 (inclusive of disbursements) to the second third party.

[8] One week after the above decision, the parties attended before the AR again and informed her that they agreed to have the issue of liability tried first and, if it became necessary, the assessment of damages would be conducted at a subsequent hearing. The AR confirmed that her decision (as stated in [7] above) was without prejudice to the defendant’s right to take out another application for discovery of the same documents at the assessment of damages stage if the defendants should succeed in their counterclaim.

[9] One week after the attendance in [8] above, the defendants filed a notice of appeal against the AR’s decision but confined the appeal to only two categories of documents listed as items 3 and 4 in the schedule. These two items were:

[11] Order 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Ed) provides:

[12] As is clear from r 5(1) set out above, it is subject to r 7, described by the Court of Appeal in Tan Chin Seng & Ors v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2002] 3 SLR 345 at [15] as prescribing “an overriding principle”. Rule 7 provides:

[13] In Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2004] 4 SLR 39, Belinda Ang J said (at [37] and [38]):

[16] Where the second third party was concerned, the defendants did not appear to dispute his statement made on affidavit that the documents sought were with the plaintiff and not with him. Although he had previously affirmed a list of documents, that was because of his position in the plaintiff. The defendants therefore should not have proceeded with the application against the second third party before the AR. Having proceeded against him and lost, they now compound the error by including the second third party in this appeal.