Tan Seow Cheng v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd

1. In this action, the Plaintiff Tan Seow Cheng was a customer of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (‘OCBC’). He alleged that OCBC had made certain remarks to one Cheong Lam Keong, who was also its customer, to the effect that:

2. It was alleged that these remarks were in breach of OCBC’s agreement with Mr Tan and/or its statutory duty to Mr Tan and or defamatory.

3. As OCBC is a corporate entity, the alleged remarks could only have been made by one of its staff. However, without obtaining or managing to obtain the identity of the staff in OCBC who allegedly made the remarks, and other particulars, Mr Tan commenced action against OCBC. OCBC then sought various particulars of the Statement of Claim which were ordered by AR Teo Hsiao-Huey with an order that the Statement of Claim be struck out without further order should Mr Tan default in complying with the order.

4. Being dissatisfied, Mr Tan appealed to the judge-in-chambers and the appeal was heard by me. By then, some particulars had been filed. However, as the particulars supplied in respect of some of the paragraphs of the Statement of Claim were not adequate, Mr Vijay Kumar Rai, Counsel for Mr Tan, carried on with the appeal in respect of those paragraphs i.e para 8(a) to (d) and 9. Except for one variation, I dismissed the appeal. Mr Tan has appealed to the Court of Appeal.

5. As I have said, the particulars which were still in issue were in respect of paras 8(a) to (d) and 9 of the Statement of Claim. I set out below the request in respect of these paragraphs and the particulars given:

6. Mr Kannan Ramesh, Counsel for OCBC, submitted that in relation to para 9 of the Statement of Claim, Mr Tan must provide the name of the staff who allegedly made the remarks and the place or places and the dates and times the same were made. He accepted that one date i.e 31 October 2001 had been provided. In relation to para 8 of the Statement of Claim, he submitted that Mr Tan must provide the name of the staff who allegedly made the remarks. If the particulars sought were not provided, OCBC could not sensibly prepare for trial.

7. Mr Rai countered that OCBC must know which officer in the relevant department dealt with Mr Cheong. OCBC must also know what policies or guidelines it had about disclosing information about one customer to another. He said that Mr Tan had difficulty in getting further information from Mr Cheong but accepted that there was no affidavit from Mr Tan about this difficulty. There was also a suggestion by Mr Rai that when the matter proceeded to trial, Mr Cheong would be subpoenaed and the information sought would be given by him. As for the dates and places, Mr Rai submitted that Mr Tan should be allowed to provide such particulars to the best of his knowledge. Mr Rai then sought to extend this argument to the name of the person who allegedly made the remarks.

8. In my view, the most critical fact that must be asserted in the Statement of Claim was the name of the staff who allegedly made the remarks. I did not accept the submission that because OCBC must know which officer in the relevant department dealt with Mr Cheong, Mr Tan need not identify the staff. It was not for OCBC to make its own inquiry but for Mr Tan, as the Plaintiff, to assert the identity of the maker of the remarks. Furthermore, OCBC should not have to wait until trial to learn about this identity as it required the identity in order to prepare for the trial. I also did not accept the submission that Mr Tan should be allowed to state the identity of the staff to the best of his knowledge. It seemed to me that this was a ploy for him to identify any one staff and then be allowed subsequently to allege that in fact it was another staff who allegedly made the remarks.

9. Likewise, for the dates and times when the alleged remarks were made. These were material facts. Mr Tan had to make it clear whether he was asserting that the remarks were made on only one occasion i.e 31 October 2001 or more and identify them by dates and times. If he was not certain about the exact dates and times, he could give approximates. As for the place where the alleged remarks were made, I allowed Mr Tan a variation, i.e he could assert the place to the best of his knowledge since this was less material and at the time of the hearing before me, I was not certain whether Mr Cheong knew the place where the alleged remarks were made as I was not certain whether they had been made over the telephone.

10. It seemed to me that Mr Tan was ill-prepared to mount his claim. He could and should have first obtained the necessary particulars from Mr Cheong. If Mr Cheong was not prepared to co-operate, he could and should have obtained the particulars through O 26A of the Rules of Court regarding pre-action interrogatories. If Mr Tan was concerned about antagonising Mr Cheong, then Mr Tan should re-consider whether to pursue his claim. Instead, Mr Tan initiated his action in the hope of muddling along till he reached the trial stage. However, OCBC was not obliged to go with him along this unsatisfactory route. Furthermore, when faced with OCBC’s request for particulars, Mr Tan could and should have immediately taken steps under O 26A or withdraw his claim till he was better prepared. However, he did not take either step.