QS-First Pte Ltd v Goh Tuan Keong: Discovery of Documents & Compliance with Rules of Court
QS-First Pte Ltd sought specific discovery from Goh Tuan Keong and Yau Sow Shan in the High Court of Singapore. The application concerned compliance with Order 24 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, specifically what must be stated in an affidavit when discovery is sought. The court partially allowed the application, ordering the defendants to file further affidavits regarding possession, custody, or power over specific categories of documents.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application partially allowed. Defendants to file affidavits for certain document categories.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for specific discovery. The key legal issue is what is required in the affidavit to comply with O 24 r 5 of the Rules of Court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QS-FIRST PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Partially Allowed | Partial | Ashok Kumar Rai, Haziq Ika bin Zahidi |
| GOH TUAN KEONG | Defendant | Individual | Affidavit Required | Other | Ng Huan Yong |
| YAU SOW SHAN | Defendant | Individual | Affidavit Required | Other | Ng Huan Yong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Teck Ping Karen | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ashok Kumar Rai | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
| Haziq Ika bin Zahidi | Eversheds Harry Elias LLP |
| Ng Huan Yong | Chia Wong LLP |
4. Facts
- QS-First sought specific discovery from Goh and Shan.
- Goh and Shan were former director and corporate secretary/employee of QS-First, respectively.
- Leong is the current director of QS-First.
- The Enablers is alleged to be a subsidiary of QS-First.
- Goh and Shan incorporated TEII and SC.
- Dispute over possession of documents at Pek Kio Premises.
- QS-First alleges Goh and Shan breached their duties.
5. Formal Citations
- QS-First Pte Ltd v Goh Tuan Keong and another, Suit No 20 of 2017 (SUM 851 of 2018), [2018] SGHCR 05
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| QSF-The Enablers Private Limited incorporated | |
| Goh and Shan rented a unit at the Pek Kio Community Centre | |
| Pek Kio Premises used as The Enablers’ office | |
| Leong took over possession of the Pek Kio Premises | |
| Goh and Shan filed DC/DC 90/2017 | |
| Goh and Shan filed DC/SUM 346/2017 | |
| Defendants filed supplementary list of documents | |
| Plaintiff's letter of request | |
| Goh removed as a director of the plaintiff | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Discovery of Documents
- Outcome: The court clarified the requirements for affidavits in discovery applications under O 24 r 5, specifying what information must be included regarding possession, custody, or power over documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with Order 24 Rule 5 of the Rules of Court
- Sufficiency of affidavit
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Discovery of Documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dante Yap Go v Bank Austria Creditanstaff AG | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party seeking documents on the basis that it is directly relevant has to demonstrate a nexus between the pleaded causes of action and the documents they wish to discover and that a train of inquiry will itself lead to discovery of directly relevant document. |
| UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 95 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of considering the relevance of documents sought in discovery by reference to the pleaded issues. |
| Tan Chin Seng & Ors v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 345 | Singapore | Cited to affirm the importance of considering the relevance of documents sought in discovery by reference to the pleaded issues. |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 689 v DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd and Anor | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 98 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there are two elements, jurisdiction and discretion, that have to be satisfied before an order for specific discovery is made under O 24 r 5. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court O 24 r 5 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 1 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 3 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 24 r 16 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Specific Discovery
- Affidavit
- Possession
- Custody
- Power
- Rules of Court
- Order 24 Rule 5
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Rules of Court
- Affidavit
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery of Documents