Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim: Hearsay Evidence, Section 32 Evidence Act & Order 38 Rule 2(1) Rules of Court
In Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Edmund Leow JC, dismissed the plaintiff's application to admit two affidavits as hearsay evidence under s 32(1)(j) of the Evidence Act. The plaintiff sought to admit affidavits from her mother-in-law, Lau, who resided in Hong Kong and was allegedly unfit to travel to Singapore or appear as a witness. The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate Lau's inability to testify via video link and that admitting the affidavits without cross-examination would be prejudicial to the defendant. The plaintiff is suing the defendant for S$580,000. The court also considered O 38 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court, concluding that the matters deposed to by Lau were highly contentious and that her cognitive impairment cast doubt on the reliability of her affidavits.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff’s application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiff's application to admit hearsay evidence was dismissed. The court considered s 32 of the Evidence Act and O 38 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wan Lai Ting | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kea Kah Kim | Defendant | Individual | Application Opposed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Edmund Leow | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alina Sim | Axis Law Corporation |
| Nazim Khan | UniLegal LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff applied to admit AEICs of her 78-year-old mother-in-law, Lau, as hearsay evidence.
- Lau lives in Hong Kong and Plaintiff claimed she was unfit to travel to Singapore or appear as a witness.
- Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for S$580,000, the remaining sum for shares she lent to the Defendant.
- Defendant disputes the authenticity of the 29 December 2006 Document and alleges a sham transfer of shares.
- Dr Chau stated Lau had stroke attacks, cognitive impairment, and was not recommended to travel or present in court.
- Defendant opposed the application, citing the need to cross-examine Lau and the dubious reliability of her evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim, Suit No 320 of 2013 (Summons No 3480 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Alleged transfer of beneficial interest in shares from Leung Man Ha to the Plaintiff | |
| CNET acquired by ArianeCorp Ltd (now known as Polaris Limited) | |
| Lau deposed an affidavit of evidence-in-chief | |
| Lau deposed an affidavit of evidence-in-chief | |
| Dr Chau Hok Ping issued a note regarding Lau's health | |
| Dr Chau Hok Ping issued a note regarding Lau's health | |
| Plaintiff filed application to admit Lau's AEICs as documentary hearsay | |
| Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the affidavits were inadmissible as hearsay evidence because the witness was not sufficiently proven to be unavailable for cross-examination and admitting the affidavits would not be in the interests of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Unavailability of witness for cross-examination
- Interests of justice
- Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
- Outcome: The court held that the affidavit evidence was inadmissible because the matters deposed to were highly contentious, and the witness's cognitive impairment cast doubt on the reliability of the affidavits.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Witness attendance for cross-examination
- Court's discretion to grant leave
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lejzor Teper v The Queen | Privy Council | Yes | [1952] 1 AC 480 | United Kingdom | Cited to define hearsay evidence as evidence where the maker of the statement is not available for cross-examination. |
| Industrial & Commercial Bank Ltd v PD International Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 382 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the court’s discretion to grant leave under O 38 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court to admit affidavit evidence when a witness does not attend trial for cross-examination. |
| Hwang Cheng Tsu Hsu (by her litigation representative Hsu Ann Mei Amy) v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 47 | Singapore | Cited to show that the court may refuse to admit affidavit evidence under O 38 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court if there are doubts as to whether the deponent was capable of making the affidavit. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief
- Hearsay Evidence
- Video Link
- Cognitive Impairment
- Cross-examination
- Beneficial Ownership
- Shares
- Sham
15.2 Keywords
- hearsay
- evidence
- affidavit
- cross-examination
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Evidence
- Civil Procedure