Sin Lian Heng Construction v Singapore Telecommunications: Admissibility of 'Without Prejudice' Communications

In Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the admissibility of 'without prejudice' communications. Sin Lian Heng Construction, the plaintiff, sued Singapore Telecommunications, the defendant, for outstanding payments. The defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract regarding missing copper cables. The plaintiff objected to the defendant pleading certain admissions, arguing they were made 'without prejudice'. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding that a letter from the plaintiff was protected by 'without prejudice' privilege as an opening shot in negotiations, but that minutes of meetings were not privileged.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed whether communications between a contractor and employer were 'without prejudice' and thus inadmissible, focusing on settlement negotiations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartialS Magintharan, James Liew
Singapore Telecommunications LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal dismissed in partLostDawn Tan, Julian Soong

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
S MagintharanNetto & Magin LLC
James LiewNetto & Magin LLC
Dawn TanRajah & Tann
Julian SoongRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Sin Lian Heng Construction was contracted by Singapore Telecommunications to lay and recover telecommunication cables.
  2. Sin Lian Heng claimed it completed all contracted and additional works but did not receive payment.
  3. Singapore Telecommunications counterclaimed for breach of contract, conversion, and/or detention of copper cables.
  4. Singapore Telecommunications pleaded admissions allegedly made by Sin Lian Heng's officers during site meetings and in a letter.
  5. Sin Lian Heng objected to the admissions being pleaded, arguing they were made 'without prejudice'.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd, Suit 525/2006, RA 292/2006, [2007] SGHC 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement entered into between the parties.
Defendant brought the issue of the ‘missing cables’ to the plaintiff’s attention.
Meeting held between the parties.
Letter from the plaintiff to the defendant.
Action commenced by the plaintiff.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that a letter from the plaintiff was protected by 'without prejudice' privilege as an opening shot in negotiations, but that minutes of meetings were not privileged.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of 'without prejudice' privilege
      • Whether communications amount to admissions
      • Whether communications made in the context of negotiations to settle dispute between parties

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Conversion
  • Detention

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council & anotherHouse of LordsYes[1989] AC 1280England and WalesCited for the principle that the 'without prejudice' privilege encourages litigants to settle their differences.
Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd v Dextra Asia Co Ltd & anotherCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR 807SingaporeCited for reaffirming the rationale underlying the 'without prejudice' privilege.
Bradford & Bingley Plc v RashidHouse of LordsYes[2006] 4 All ER 705England and WalesCited for reaffirming the rationale underlying the 'without prejudice' privilege.
Sinojaya Sdn Bhd v Metal Component Engineering Pte Ltd (Hoyo Crosstec Sdn Bhd, third party)High CourtYes[2003] 1 SLR 281SingaporeCited for the principle that the availability of the ‘without prejudice’ privilege is not dependent upon the use of the words “without prejudice”.
Unilever plc v The Procter & Gamble CoCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 All ER 783England and WalesCited for exceptional situations where the 'without prejudice' privilege will not be admissible.
South Shropshire District Council v AmosEnglish Court of AppealYes[1986] 1 WLR 1271England and WalesCited for the 'first shot' principle, that privilege can attach to a document headed 'without prejudice' even if it is an opening shot.
In re Daintrey, ex parte HoltQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1893] 2 QB 116England and WalesCited for the principle that the ‘without prejudice’ rule “has no application unless some person is in dispute or negotiation with another”.
Norwich Union Life Insurance Society v Tony Waller LtdHigh CourtYes(1984) 270 E.G. 42England and WalesCited as a case where it was held that letters which initiated negotiations before a dispute had in fact arisen could not be privileged.
Schering Corporation v CIPLA Ltd and anotherHigh Court of JusticeYes[2004] EWHC 2587 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that the opening shot in negotiations can, depending upon the circumstances, amount to bona fide without prejudice correspondence and be privileged accordingly.
Hansraj v AoCourt of Queen's Bench of AlbertaYes(2002) A.C.W.S.J. 6409CanadaCited for the principle that correspondence which contains an actual settlement offer is clearly privileged.
GPI Leisure Corp Ltd v Yuill & orsSupreme Court of New South WalesYes(1997) NSW Lexis 1925AustraliaCited for recognizing the first shot principle.
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprungli AG v Nestlé Co LtdHigh CourtYes[1978] RPC 287England and WalesCited for the principle that the discussions at these meetings therefore could not be regarded as constituting “negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement” or “an attempt to compromise actual or impending litigation”.
Re Sunshine Securities (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[1975-1977] SLR 282SingaporeCited for the principle that the privilege cannot be invoked where no dispute in fact exists.
Ted Bates (M) Sdn Bhd v Balbir Singh JhollHigh CourtYes[1979] 2 MLJ 257MalaysiaCited as a case where one party wrote a letter admitting that he owed $250,000 to the other but merely asked for time to repay the sum.
Cutts v HeadCourt of AppealYes[1984] Ch 290England and WalesCited for the underlying policy justification for the rule is that “parties should be encouraged so far as possible to settle their disputes without resort to litigation and should not be discouraged by the knowledge that anything that is said in the course of such negotiations…may be used to their prejudice in the course of the proceedings”.
A-B Chew Investments Pte Ltd v Lim Tjoen KongHigh CourtYes[1989] SLR 790SingaporeCited for illustrating the point of waiver of privilege by conduct.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 rr 19(c) and (d)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Without prejudice
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Settlement negotiations
  • First shot principle
  • Admission of liability
  • Quantum
  • Privilege

15.2 Keywords

  • without prejudice
  • admissibility
  • evidence
  • settlement
  • negotiations
  • contract
  • construction
  • telecommunications

16. Subjects

  • Evidence Law
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Evidence
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law