Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co: Video Link Evidence & Witness's Fear of Prosecution

In Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of whether a witness's fear of prosecution is a sufficient reason to allow video link evidence. Anil Singh Gurm sued J S Yeh & Co for negligence. The plaintiff sought to have Mr. Tejinder Singh Sekhon, an Australian national, testify via video link from Australia due to his fear of prosecution in Singapore. The court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the application, holding that a fear of prosecution is not a sufficient reason to allow a witness to give evidence by video link. The court granted leave to appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court refuses video link evidence for witness fearing prosecution, balancing justice and public policy. Appeal granted.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Anil Singh GurmPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Yasmin Binte AbdullahDefendantIndividualWonWon
J S Yeh & CoDefendantCorporationWonWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ushan PremaratneKhattarWong LLP
Deborah Barker SCKhattarWong LLP
Ang Tze PhernRajah & Tann
Chandra MohanRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sued the defendants for negligent advice on a property purchase.
  2. Plaintiff acted as nominee for his cousin, Mr. Tejinder, a foreign national.
  3. Mr. Tejinder was unable to purchase the property in his own name due to restrictions.
  4. Plaintiff was charged for purchasing the property as a nominee.
  5. Mr. Tejinder feared prosecution if he returned to Singapore to testify.
  6. Plaintiff applied for Mr. Tejinder to give evidence by video link.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another, Suit No 580 of 2016, [2018] SGHC 221

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Tejinder unable to purchase the Property in his own name
Mr Tejinder moved into the Property
The Property was sold
The plaintiff was charged under s 23 of the RPA
Plaintiff commenced Suit 580
Hearing of Summons 1655
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Video Link Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the witness's fear of prosecution was not a sufficient reason to allow video link evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'unable' in Evidence Act
      • Public policy considerations in allowing video link evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sonica Industries Ltd v Fu Yu Manufacturing LtdHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 119SingaporeCited for the general principle that witnesses in civil proceedings should give their evidence orally and in person in open court.
Kim Gwang Seok v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 821SingaporeCited for the general principle that witnesses in civil proceedings should give their evidence orally and in person in open court.
Re Chow Kam FaiHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2004] 1 HKLRD 161Hong KongCited to support the argument that inability to attend must be distinguished from unwillingness to attend.
Re Chow Kam FaiUnknownYes[2004] 2 HKLRD 260Hong KongCited to support the argument that inability to attend must be distinguished from unwillingness to attend.
Raj Kumar Mahajan v HCL Technologies (Hong Kong) LimitedHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2010] HKEC 1419Hong KongCited to support the argument that inability to attend must be distinguished from unwillingness to attend.
Raj Kumar Mahajan v HCL Technologies (Hong Kong) LtdUnknownYes[2010] HKCU 2187Hong KongCited to support the argument that inability to attend must be distinguished from unwillingness to attend.
Daimler AG v Leiduck, Herbert Heinz Horst & othersHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2013] HKCU 812Hong KongCited to support the argument that inability to attend must be distinguished from unwillingness to attend.
Polanski v Condé Nast Publications LtdUK House of LordsYes[2005] 1 WLR 637England and WalesCited by the plaintiff to support the argument that the desire to avoid the normal processes of law is not a ground for declining to allow a witness to remain abroad and give evidence by video link. Distinguished by the court.
Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v RahimEnglish High CourtYes[2005] EWHC 3550England and WalesCited for the proposition that courts should be more amenable to video-link evidence where the witness is not a party to the proceedings. The court could not discern such a proposition from that judgment.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek LianHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 381SingaporeCited for the proposition that a court should lean in favor of permitting video-linked evidence if sufficient reason is given why the actual physical presence of foreign witnesses cannot be effected. Distinguished by the court.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeCited for the observations made by the House of Lords that improvements in technology have allowed evidence to be given by video link as naturally and as freely as if they were given by a witness present in the courtroom.
Seymour and another v Commissioner of TaxationAustralian Federal CourtYes[2016] FCAFC 18AustraliaCited as preferring the reasons of the minority in Polanski.
Polanski v Condé Nast PublicationsCourt of Appeal of England and WalesYes[2004] 1 WLR 387England and WalesCited as dismissing the application for video-link evidence, largely for the same reasons as the minority in Polanski.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 62ASingapore
Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 2009 Rev Ed) s 3Singapore
Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 2009 Rev Ed) s 23Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Video Link Evidence
  • Fear of Prosecution
  • Inability to Attend
  • Public Policy
  • Nominee
  • Residential Property Act

15.2 Keywords

  • video link
  • evidence
  • witness
  • prosecution
  • Singapore
  • court
  • unable
  • public policy

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Evidence70
Civil Procedure60
Video Evidence50
Witnesses40
Private International Law30
Residential Property Act30
Property Law20

16. Subjects

  • Evidence
  • Civil Procedure