The Enterprise Fund II Ltd v Jong Hee Sen: Admissibility of 'Without Prejudice' Communications

In The Enterprise Fund II Ltd v Jong Hee Sen, the Singapore High Court addressed whether certain communications were protected by 'without prejudice' privilege. The Enterprise Fund II Ltd sued Jong Hee Sen for breach of a deed of undertaking. The defendant appealed against the assistant registrar's decision to dismiss his applications to strike out a portion of the statement of claim and to expunge certain portions of affidavits. Hoo Sheau Peng JC allowed the appeals, finding that the communications, except for the initial letter of demand, were protected by 'without prejudice' privilege as they formed part of settlement negotiations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning the admissibility of communications under 'without prejudice' privilege. The court allowed the defendant's appeal, finding the communications were part of settlement negotiations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Enterprise Fund II LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLostTan Wei Ser Venetia
Jong Hee SenDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWonNandwani Manoj Prakash, Lester Lin

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hoo Sheau PengJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Wei Ser VenetiaColin Ng & Partners LLP
Nandwani Manoj PrakashGabriel Law Corporation
Lester LinGabriel Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Enterprise Fund II Ltd sued Jong Hee Sen for breach of a deed of undertaking.
  2. The deed required Jong Hee Sen to procure the sale of shares at a specified price.
  3. Jong Hee Sen failed to sell the shares or purchase the remainder.
  4. The Enterprise Fund II Ltd sent a letter of demand requesting a proposal to resolve the claim.
  5. Jong Hee Sen responded with a proposal to pay a lower sum.
  6. No final agreement was reached, and the Enterprise Fund II Ltd commenced proceedings.
  7. The defendant sought to strike out parts of the statement of claim and expunge affidavits based on 'without prejudice' privilege.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The Enterprise Fund II Ltd v Jong Hee Sen, Suit No 72 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 259

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deed of undertaking signed
Letter of Demand issued
Reply Email sent
Meeting took place
Proposal sent
Letter sent to the defendant
Affidavit by Lim Chu Pei dated
Affidavit by Tan Yang Hwee dated
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the communications, except for the initial letter of demand, were protected by 'without prejudice' privilege and therefore inadmissible.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • “Without prejudice” communications

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Fund Management
  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc v Otto Systems Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 40SingaporeCited for the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than litigate them to the finish.
Mariwu Industrial Co (S) Pte Ltd v Dextra Asia Co Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 807SingaporeCited for the principle that a statement made in the course of negotiations to settle a dispute is made without prejudice.
Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited for the principle that whether a communication is made in the course of negotiations to settle a dispute must be determined by objectively construing it as a whole in the context of the factual circumstances.
Sang Kook Suh and another v Mace (UK) LimitedEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2016] EWCA Civ 4England and WalesCited for the principle that whether a communication is made in the course of negotiations to settle a dispute must be determined by objectively construing it as a whole in the context of the factual circumstances.
Schering Corporation v CIPLA Ltd and anotherHigh Court of Justice (Chancery Division)Yes[2004] EWHC 2587 ChEngland and WalesCited for the principle that the court will seek to determine what, on a reasonable basis, the intention of the author was and how it would be understood by a reasonable recipient.
Bradford & Bingley plc v RashidHouse of LordsYes[2006] 1 WLR 2066United KingdomCited for the principle that a significant part of the context of a communication is whether it was made in response to an invitation to negotiate as to what, if anything, was due or only in response to an invitation to say how the amount due was to be repaid.
Sin Lian Heng Construction Pte Ltd v Singapore Telecommunications LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 433SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no legitimate policy interest to protect appeals for leniency or mercy.
Qingdao Bohai Construction Group Co, Ltd and others v Goh Teck Beng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 977SingaporeCited for the principle that an admission must be unequivocal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Without prejudice privilege
  • Deed of undertaking
  • Letter of demand
  • Settlement negotiations
  • Admission of liability
  • Sale proceeds target
  • IHCL Shares

15.2 Keywords

  • without prejudice
  • privilege
  • evidence
  • admissibility
  • settlement
  • negotiations
  • contract
  • deed
  • undertaking

16. Subjects

  • Evidence
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Without prejudice communications

17. Areas of Law

  • Evidence Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law