Boey Chun Hian v Singapore Sports Council: Specific Discovery Application in Negligence Claim for Near-Drowning Incident
In Boey Chun Hian (by his guardian, Boey Ghim Huat) v Singapore Sports Council, the High Court of Singapore heard an application for specific discovery of documents related to a near-drowning incident involving Boey Chun Hian at the Hougang Swimming Complex. Boey Ghim Huat, acting as guardian, sued the Singapore Sports Council for negligence. The plaintiff sought the discovery of witness statements and a Committee of Inquiry Report. The court ordered the defendants to produce the requested documents, finding that they were not protected by litigation privilege or legal advice privilege.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The court ordered the defendants to produce the witnesses’ statements and the Committee of Inquiry Report.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Specific discovery application in a negligence claim against Singapore Sports Council after a near-drowning incident during a lifesaving course.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boey Chun Hian (by his guardian and next friend, Boey Ghim Huat) | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | Dominic Chan |
| Singapore Sports Council | Defendant | Statutory Board | Application Dismissed | Lost | K Anparasan, Grace Tan |
| Neo Meng Yong | Third Party | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Amy Tung | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Dominic Chan | Characterist LLC |
| K Anparasan | KhattarWong LLP |
| Grace Tan | KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- A 15-year-old boy suffered a near-drowning incident at Hougang Swimming Complex on 20 June 2009.
- The boy was participating in a lifesaving course at the time of the incident.
- The boy suffered severe personal injuries and is currently bedridden.
- The father, as guardian, brought an action against the Singapore Sports Council for negligence.
- The plaintiff sought specific discovery of witnesses’ statements and the Committee of Inquiry Report.
- The defendants claimed litigation privilege over the witnesses’ statements and legal advice privilege over the COI Report.
5. Formal Citations
- Boey Chun Hian (by his guardian and next friend, Boey Ghim Huat) v Singapore Sports Council (Neo Meng Yong, third party), Suit No 408 of 2012 (Summons No of 983 of 2013), [2013] SGHCR 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Near drowning incident at Hougang Swimming Complex | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings | |
| Defendants filed List of Documents | |
| Boey Ghim Huat’s affidavit filed | |
| Fong Hung Ying’s affidavit filed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Litigation Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the witnesses’ statements were not protected by litigation privilege.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] SGCA 9
- [1980] AC 521
- Legal Advice Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that the COI Report was not protected by legal advice privilege.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] SGCA 9
- [1988] 1 Ch 317
- [2005] 1 AC 610
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Discovery of Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Discovery
- Personal Injury
11. Industries
- Sports
- Recreation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 9 | Singapore | Leading authority on legal professional privilege in Singapore, discussing the rationale underlying legal professional privilege and considered the relationship between litigation privilege and legal advice privilege. |
| Brink’s Inc v Singapore Airlines Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the party asserting privilege has the burden of proving entitlement to it. |
| Waugh v British Railways Board | House of Lords | Yes | [1980] AC 521 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle regarding the dominant purpose test in relation to litigation privilege, specifically concerning accident reports. |
| United States of America v Philip Morris Inc | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 220 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that litigation must be more than merely possible for litigation privilege to attach. |
| Grant v Downs | Australian High Court | Yes | (1976) 135 CLR 674 | Australia | Discusses routine reports and the dominant purpose test in the context of legal professional privilege. |
| Gallagher v Stanley | Supreme Court | Yes | [1998] 2 I.R. 267 | Ireland | Illustrates that non-routine documents may not be established as having been made with the dominant purpose of litigation. |
| Balabel v Air India | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 1 Ch 317 | England and Wales | Laid down the modern test for legal advice privilege, emphasizing the continuum of communication between solicitor and client. |
| Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 6) | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] 1 AC 610 | England and Wales | Discusses the scope of legal advice privilege and the boundaries of what constitutes legal advice. |
| Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (2004) 136 FCR 357 | Australia | Discusses the purpose criterion for legal professional privilege. |
| Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 5) | High Court | Yes | [2002] EWHC 2730 (Comm) | England and Wales | Discusses the dominant purpose test for legal advice privilege. |
| Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 5) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] EWCA Civ 474 | England and Wales | Discusses the scope of legal advice privilege and the dominant purpose test. |
| Wheeler v Le Marchant | High Court of Justice | Yes | (1881) 17 Ch D 675 | England and Wales | Discusses communication made through the agent of a client as a conduit to the solicitor is protected by legal advice privilege. |
| Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co Ltd v London and North Western Railway Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1913) 3 KB 850 | England and Wales | Discusses the day-to-day records of a corporation which come into existence in the ordinary course of its business may lend themselves to a claim of privilege. |
| Esso v Federal Commissioner of Taxation | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1999) 201 CLR 49 | Australia | The High Court of Australia confirmed that the dominant purpose test applies to both legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. |
| Daniels Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2002) 213 CLR 543 | Australia | The High Court of Australia confirmed that the dominant purpose test applies to both legal advice privilege and litigation privilege. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| 128 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| 131 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 128A of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Litigation Privilege
- Legal Advice Privilege
- Specific Discovery
- Dominant Purpose Test
- Witnesses’ Statements
- Committee of Inquiry Report
- Near-Drowning Incident
- Negligence
- Reasonable Prospect of Litigation
15.2 Keywords
- discovery
- litigation privilege
- legal advice privilege
- negligence
- Singapore
- sports council
- drowning
- lifesaving course
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Legal Professional Privilege
- Discovery
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Tort Law
- Negligence