Soh Lup Chee v Seow Boon Cheng: Discovery of Documents and Striking Out Defence for Non-Compliance
Soh Lup Chee and others sued Seow Boon Cheng and another in the High Court of Singapore, alleging fraud related to the valuation of shares in Genisys. The plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant withheld material information from the valuer, leading to an undervaluation of the company's assets. The court found a long record of non-compliance with discovery orders and allowed the appeal, making an 'unless order' for the defendants to comply with the discovery requests within 14 days, or face having their defence struck out.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs sued defendants for fraud, alleging material non-disclosure of documents. The court allowed the appeal and made an 'unless order' for compliance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soh Lup Chee | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Seow Boon Cheng | Defendant | Individual | Unless order granted | Lost | |
| Genisys | Defendant | Corporation | Unless order granted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eunice Ng | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Randolph Khoo Boo Teck | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Chong Boon Leong | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs and first defendant were friends and shareholders in Genisys.
- Plaintiffs commenced action against first defendant for relief against oppression of minority shareholders.
- Parties reached a settlement and consent judgment was entered on 7 July 2000.
- First defendant agreed to purchase plaintiffs’ shares in Genisys based on an agreed formula.
- Don Ho Mun Tuke was appointed as the valuer.
- Plaintiffs commenced a fresh claim based on fraud, alleging that the first defendant withheld material information from the valuer.
- Plaintiffs made interlocutory applications for discovery, but the first defendant refused to cooperate.
5. Formal Citations
- Soh Lup Chee and Others v Seow Boon Cheng and Another, Suit 106/2001, RA 37/2002, [2002] SGHC 64
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons No. 1902 of 1999 filed | |
| Consent judgment entered | |
| Discovery order made | |
| Don Ho Mun Tuke appointed as valuer | |
| Discovery orders made by the assistant registrar | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The court found that the first defendant had not complied with the discovery orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Material non-disclosure
- Compliance with discovery orders
- Striking Out Defence
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and made an 'unless order', giving the defendants 14 days to comply with the discovery orders or face having their defence struck out.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-compliance with discovery orders
- Contumacious conduct
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of defence
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lyell v Kennedy | N/A | Yes | [1884] 27 Ch d 1 | N/A | Cited regarding the court's power to order further discovery if it has a reasonable suspicion that there are further documents to be discovered. |
| British Association Of Glass Manufacturers Ltd v Nettlefold | N/A | Yes | [1912] 1 K B 369 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that the court may strike out a defence if it is satisfied that the defendant had failed to comply with a discovery order. |
| Kent Coal Concessions Ltd v Duguid | N/A | Yes | [1910] 1 K B 904 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that the court can draw inferences from documents and order the production of related documents. |
| Manilal & Sons Pte Ltd v Bhupendra KJ Shan | N/A | Yes | [1989] SLR 1182 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the court is satisfied from the documents produced that other documents must exist, the party concerned must either produce them or explain on oath what has become of them. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Balance Budget Summaries
- IMIX
- Integrated Management Information System
- Discovery orders
- Unless order
- Material non-disclosure
- Source documents
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery of documents
- Striking out defence
- Non-compliance
- Fraud
- Balance Budget Summaries
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Material non-disclosure | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 90 |
| Discovery Obligations | 85 |
| Striking out | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Misrepresentation | 40 |
| Company Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Fraud