Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club: Discovery of Documents, Relevancy, and Allegations of Misrepresentation and Breach of Contract
Tan Chin Seng and others, representing 4,885 members of Raffles Town Club, appealed against a decision regarding the discovery of documents in their action against Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd for misrepresentation and breach of contract. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, on 16 July 2002, allowed the appeal only in respect of item 10, relating to members' complaints, affirming the lower court's decision on the other six items. The court addressed the criteria of relevancy for document discovery and the necessity of pleading allegations of fraud expressly with particulars.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed only in respect of the documents under item 10; decision of the court below affirmed regarding the other six items of documents.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding discovery of documents in a case against Raffles Town Club for misrepresentation and breach of contract. The court addressed relevancy criteria and pleading requirements.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | |
| Tan Chin Seng | Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The appellants are members of Raffles Town Club, acting on behalf of themselves and 4,885 others.
- The appellants are seeking reliefs against the respondent on the grounds of misrepresentation and breach of contract.
- The action is based on a common law prospectus issued by RTC when inviting members of the public to join the Club.
- The prospectus promised "lavish reception and facilities" and that the Club would be "without peer in terms of size, facilities and sheer opulence".
- The plaintiffs alleged that they were made to understand that the total number of members would be limited.
- The plaintiffs claimed the representations turned out to be false because 19,000 people became founder members and the facilities were inadequate.
- The plaintiffs asked for rescission of the contract and return of money or damages for breach of contract.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Chin Seng and Others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd, CA 51/2002, [2002] SGCA 35
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter of invitation issued by Raffles Town Club | |
| Deadline for first offering of Raffles Town Club membership | |
| Plaintiffs applied for an order for discovery of documents | |
| Court of Appeal decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The court allowed discovery only in respect of item 10, relating to members' complaints, and affirmed the lower court's decision on the other six items.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevancy of documents
- Train of inquiry
- Related Cases:
- [1989] 2 All ER 827
- [1995] 1 WLR 172
- [1992] 2 SLR 710
- (1885) 15 QBD 439
- (1882) 11 QBD 55
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the documents sought were irrelevant to the issue of misrepresentation, as there was no allegation of fraud and the documents were not known to the plaintiffs at the time they became members.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- Suit No. 234/91
- [1995] 1 SLR 474
- [1971] 3 All ER 237
- [1976] 3 All ER 571
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the documents sought were irrelevant to the issue of breach of contract, as the plaintiffs needed to establish the representations made, that they became terms of the contract, and that there was a breach of those terms.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Rescission of Contract
- Return of Money Paid
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thorpe v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police | Not Available | Yes | [1989] 2 All ER 827 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that discovery should not be ordered if the material is to be used only for the purpose of cross-examination to establish the credibility of witnesses. |
| GE Capital Corporate Finance Group Ltd v Bankers Trust Co | Not Available | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 172 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a discovered document can be blanked out in part if the blanked out portion is irrelevant to the issues of the action. |
| Wright Norman v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation | Not Available | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 710 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discovery process should not be allowed to 'fish' a cause of action. |
| Chan Cheow Kiat v Tang Hoon Keng | High Court | Yes | Suit No. 234/91 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiffs, but distinguished by the court as involving allegations of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations related to the existing state of affairs of a company. |
| Forum Development Pte Ltd v Global Accent Trading Pte Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiffs, but distinguished by the court as concerning a specific innocent misrepresentation made to induce a potential tenant to take up space in a shopping mall. |
| Prenn v Simmonds | Not Available | Yes | [1971] 3 All ER 237 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that evidence as to the factual background must be restricted to the circumstances known to the parties at or before the date of the contract. |
| Reardon-Smith Line Ltd v Yngver Hansen-Tangen | Not Available | Yes | [1976] 3 All ER 571 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that subsequent acts or conduct cannot be relied upon, or used, to construe any representations made in any instrument or the terms of a contract. |
| Jones v Richards | Not Available | Yes | (1885) 15 QBD 439 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of how a requested document may lead to a relevant document. |
| Compagne Financiere Et Commerciale Du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Co | Not Available | Yes | (1882) 11 QBD 55 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that every document relates to the matters in question in the action, which not only would be evidence upon any issue, but also which, it is reasonable to suppose, contains information which may – not which must – either directly or indirectly enable the party [requiring discovery] either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 24 Rule 1(2) |
| Order 24 Rule 5 |
| Order 24 Rule 7 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Discovery of documents
- Relevancy
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of contract
- Prospectus
- Train of inquiry
- Exclusivity
- Limited membership
15.2 Keywords
- discovery
- documents
- relevancy
- misrepresentation
- breach of contract
- singapore
- raffles town club
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 85 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Evidence | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Discovery