Judgment Header
Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196
Court DecisionSGHC
[2011] SGHC 196
[2011] SGHC 196
General Division of the High Court of Singapore2 Sept 2011Suit No 212 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal No 195 of 2011)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 13 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
13Later cases and laws citing this decision
“ing concern was well-captured by Saville LJ in BA Pension Trustees Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd (1994) 72 BLR 26 at 33 (cited locally in Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 (“Sharikat Logistics”) at [7]):”
“based on their own case in the draft SOC 3, were “evidence” and it is well-established that material facts, not evidence, should be pleaded (see Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8]). In the premises, the S 12 Plaintiffs’ claims based on the alleged agreements in the draft SOC 3”
“Citing Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196, Champion argued that the above paragraphs should not be pleaded because they raise evidence concerning some e-mails and “Proforma Invoices”. I agreed with Champion. As O 18 r 7(1) of the ROC mandate”
“whether a request for further and better particulars will be granted is whether the particulars requested relate to material facts or evidence (Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 (“Sharikat”) at [8]). Material facts are the facts that are necessary for the purpose of formulating a co”
“ng the case. It is not sufficient to simply deny the claims that have been put forth by the Plaintiff Companies. As stated by Choo Han Teck J in Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8]: “… so long as the defendant knows what cause of action is alleged and what remedies are sought f”
Show 8 moreShow fewer
“is merely a “fishing expedition” in circumstances where the plaintiff is perfectly able to plead and answer to the case put. It is said, citing Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 (“Sharikat Logistics”) at [7] (which in turn cites BA Pension Trustees Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons L”
“l Trustees Ltd [1974] Ch 269): “It is sufficient for the pleader to state the material facts. [The pleader] need not state the legal result.” In Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8], the court held that “[a] Statement of Claim must set out material facts, not opinion, and not ev”
“uished from the evidence by which the pleaded facts are to be proven, which will not be an appropriate subject in a request for particulars (see Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8]).”
“are to only state the material facts, and not evidence. They are only meant to set out the “basic case” that the opposing party is to meet: see Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8].”
“trial without leave go into any matters not included: Johnson Pacific Pte Ltd v Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin William and others [2004] 4 SLR(R) 200 at [11]; Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan [2011] SGHC 196 at [8]; and Element Six Technologies Ltd v ILA Technologies Pte Ltd [2016] SGHCR 16 at [12].”
“efully crafted and curated documents that should contain only the material facts of the case. It suffices to recall the time-honoured refrain in Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 at [8] that a “Statement of Claim must set out material facts, not opinion, and not evidence. … Pleading”
“he general principles on whether particulars should be ordered, as stated in the relevant case law, may be summarised as follows (see generally, Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others [2011] SGHC 196 (“Sharikat Logistics”) at [7]; Element Six Technologies Ltd v Ila Technologies Pte Ltd [2017] SGHCR 16 a”
“pare to answer it” (British Airways Pension Trustees Ltd v Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd (1994) 45 ConLR 1 at 4–5 (per Saville LJ), cited with approval in Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan [2011] SGHC 196 at [7]). As a matter of natural justice, every litigant has a right to be given fair and proper notice o”
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 No 212 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal No 195 of 2011)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2011-09-02
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.