[2013] SGHCR 7

“stent with” the general proposition, under Singapore law, that expert evidence is usually more suited to a later stage of the proceedings (citing AstraZeneca AB(SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 7 (“AstraZeneca”) at [61] and [62]). She therefore submitted that the Combination Requests were better suit”

“olidation unit” and “associate” (and its variants). In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, these requests ought to be rejected (citing AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 7 (“AstraZeneca”) at [47]). The requests are also similar to requests made in the related High Court Suit N”

“obliged to inform the defendant of sufficient particulars to enable the defendant to know the case to be met (see Sun Electric at [17]–[21], and AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 7 (“AstraZeneca”) at [17]–[48], [58] and [61]). It is insufficient for a plaintiff to simply state that the”

“g party of the nature of the case that is to be met at trial so that the opposing party is not taken by surprise at the trial: see, for example, AstraZeneca AB (SE) v Sanofi-Aventis Singapore Pte Ltd [2013] SGHCR 7 at [12] and the Practice Guide at para 09.038.”