Judgment Header
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98
Court DecisionSGHC
[2008] SGHC 98
[2008] SGHC 98
General Division of the High Court of Singapore30 Jun 2008Suit 208/2007, SUM 1888/2008
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 8 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
8Later cases and laws citing this decision
“stody or power of the party in question and the documents sought are relevant and necessary (see The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98 at [30]–[32]; Singapore Civil Procedure 2017 vol 1 (Foo Chee Hock gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 2017) “Singap”
“party and (ii) the requested documents are relevant: see decision of the Singapore High Court in The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and another [2008] SGHC 98 (“DTZ Debenham”) at [29] and [30].”
“The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Anor [2008] SGHC 98 (“DTZ”) stated that there are two elements, jurisdiction and discretion, that have to be satisfied before an order for specific discovery is made under O 24 r 5. As stated by DTZ at [26]:”
“er applications [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39, Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG [2007] SGHC 69, The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98 and CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Polimet Pte Ltd and other”
“made on the basis of a prima facie case that there were relevant documents to disclose – see, eg, The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Lung (SEA) Pte Ltd and another [2008] SGHC 98.”
Show 3 moreShow fewer
“an order for specific discovery, and its discretion to decide whether or not to grant the order: The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and another [2008] SGHC 98 (“DTZ Debenham”) at [26]. The court’s jurisdiction to grant the order would be enlivened when the conditi”
“st of “relevance-necessity” for specific discovery under O 24 of the ROC 2014 (see, for example, The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98), to the higher and stricter threshold of “materiality” under O 11 of the ROC 2021 (see Eng’s Wantan Nood”
“stated many years ago in a previous capacity at the Supreme Court in the High Court decision of The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Another [2008] SGHC 98 (at [118]), that counsel should bow not only to the court but its schedule (and timelines), I think that s”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 208/2007, SUM 1888/2008
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2008-06-30
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.