Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering: Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
In Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and Keppel Shipyard Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an application by Sim Cheng Soon to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. Sim Cheng Soon, a welder, claimed against BT Engineering and Keppel Shipyard for injuries sustained in an accident. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff applied to adduce fresh evidence in the form of missing photographs. The Court of Appeal allowed the application, finding that the conditions for adducing fresh evidence were met.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Application Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding missing photographs in a negligence claim. The court allowed the application, finding the evidence potentially influential.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BT Engineering Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sim Cheng Soon | Appellant | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Keppel Shipyard Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Sek Keong | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was a welder employed by the first defendant, BT Engineering.
- Plaintiff claimed he fell through an uncovered opening at Keppel Shipyard and suffered serious injuries.
- The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the plaintiff's evidence unsatisfactory.
- Plaintiff's counsel discovered missing photographs after examining the back of the photographs adduced at trial.
- The missing photographs could potentially show the sequence and timings of the photographs taken after the accident.
5. Formal Citations
- Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and Another, CA 140/2005, SS 1039/2006, [2006] SGCA 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff injured at Keppel Shipyard | |
| Trial judge decision in Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd [2006] 1 SLR 697 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court allowed the application to adduce fresh evidence, finding that the conditions in Ladd v Marshall were satisfied.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable diligence in obtaining evidence
- Potential influence of evidence on the result of the case
- Credibility of evidence
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to adduce fresh evidence
- Discovery of negatives of photographs
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Occupiers’ Liability
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the three conditions that must be satisfied to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial. |
| MCST Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 613 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the application of the principles in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Cheong Kim Hock v Lin Securities (Pte) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the application of the principles in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 233 | Singapore | Cited as an example of modifications to the principles in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 392 | Singapore | Cited as an example of modifications to the principles in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Cheng-Wong Mei Ling Theresa v Oei Hong Leong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 637 | Singapore | Cited as an example of modifications to the principles in Ladd v Marshall. |
| Lam Soon Cannery Co v Hooper & Co | Singapore Federal Court | Yes | [1965] 2 MLJ 148 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the conditions in Ladd v Marshall are cumulative. |
| Maxisegar Sdn Bhd v Silver Concept Sdn Bhd | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 5 MLJ 1 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the conditions in Ladd v Marshall are cumulative. |
| Re Lim Hong Kee David | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [1995] 4 MLJ 564 | Malaysia | Cited for the definition of diligence in the context of obtaining fresh evidence. |
| John Trawe Kuda v. Adtec Sdn. Bhd. | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [1996] 5 M.L.J. 335 | Malaysia | Cited as incorporating the three conditions laid down in Ladd v. Marshall. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited for the criterion of relevance in the context of discovery. |
| Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 697 | Singapore | The decision of the trial judge being appealed against. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Factories Act (Cap 104, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fresh evidence
- Reasonable diligence
- Negatives
- Photographs
- Appeal
- Ladd v Marshall
- Sequence of photographs
15.2 Keywords
- Fresh evidence
- Appeal
- Negligence
- Photographs
- Civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Negligence | 60 |
| Personal Injury | 60 |
| Workplace Safety and Health | 50 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Property Law | 20 |
| Construction Law | 15 |
| Construction | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Appeals