Singapore Airlines v CSDS Aircraft: Pleadings, Rules of Court, Witness Attendance

In a case between Singapore Airlines Ltd and CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc before the Singapore International Commercial Court, the court ruled on two applications. The first application by Singapore Airlines sought further and better particulars regarding the cancellation of contracts by CSDS Aircraft. The court ordered CSDS Aircraft to provide the requested particulars. The second application concerned the bifurcation of the trial, with liability issues to be determined separately from damages, and the mode of evidence presentation. The court granted the bifurcation and ordered that evidence for the liability phase be submitted via affidavits. The court found in favour of Singapore Airlines.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Airlines sues CSDS Aircraft. The court addresses applications for particulars and a bifurcated trial, ruling in favor of Singapore Airlines.

1.7 Decision Date

15 July 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Singapore Airlines Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application granted	Won	Tan Teck San Kelvin of Drew & Napier LLC Chng Hu Ping of Drew & Napier LLC Chen Chuanjian Jason of Drew & Napier LLC
CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc	Defendant	Corporation	Application denied	Lost	Rajaram Ramiah of RHTLaw Asia LLP Eugene Tan of RHTLaw Asia LLP Roderick Edward Martin of RHTLaw Asia LLP Yap Yongzhi Gideon of RHTLaw Asia LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Jeremy Lionel Cooke	International Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Teck San Kelvin	Drew & Napier LLC
Chng Hu Ping	Drew & Napier LLC
Chen Chuanjian Jason	Drew & Napier LLC
Rajaram Ramiah	RHTLaw Asia LLP
Eugene Tan	RHTLaw Asia LLP
Roderick Edward Martin	RHTLaw Asia LLP
Yap Yongzhi Gideon	RHTLaw Asia LLP

4. Facts

Singapore Airlines sued CSDS Aircraft for breach of contract.
CSDS Aircraft filed an Amended Defence and Counterclaim.
Singapore Airlines sought Further and Better Particulars of paragraph 27 of the Amended Defence and Counterclaim.
The defendant averred that due to the airframe not being delivered, the defendant had to cancel contracts with CamAir and Turkish Technic.
The plaintiff applied for a bifurcated trial, with liability issues to be determined separately from damages.
The defendant initially suggested that the entire trial be conducted on paper without oral submissions.
The plaintiff proposed a split trial where liability issues were determined on paper, but damages were heard separately with oral evidence and cross-examination.

5. Formal Citations

Singapore Airlines Ltd v CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc, Suit No 4 of 2019 (Summons No 30 and 31 of 2020), [2020] SGHC(I) 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-05-24	Amended Defence and Counterclaim served
2019-07-01	Amended Defence and Counterclaim amended
2019-10-14	Plaintiff requested Further Particulars
2019-11-21	Defendant furnished Further Particulars
2020-05-15	Defendant's lawyers suggested trial on paper
2020-05-21	Plaintiff filed Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 2)
2020-05-22	Plaintiff proposed a split trial
2020-05-26	Defendant adopted an 'all or nothing' approach
2020-06-11	Amended Defence and Counterclaim amended
2020-06-22	Judgment reserved
2020-06-25	Plaintiff's submissions in letter
2020-06-25	Judgment reserved
2020-07-16	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Further and Better Particulars
- Outcome: The court ordered the defendant to provide further and better particulars regarding the cancellation of contracts.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] SGHC 196
  - [2017] SGHCR 16
  - [2018] 5 SLR 117
  - [2002] SGHC 280
Bifurcation of Trial
- Outcome: The court ordered the trial to be bifurcated, with the issue of liability to be heard separately from the assessment of damages.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537
  - [2017] 1 SLR 918
  - [2011] SGHC 28
  - [2014] 4 SLR 795
  - [2003] 1 SLR(R) 382
  - [1993] 1 WLR 1014

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Aviation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sharikat Logistics Pte Ltd v Ong Boon Chuan and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 196	Singapore	Cited for the basic purpose of pleadings to enable the opposing party to know the case being made in sufficient detail to prepare to answer it.
Element Six Technologies Ltd v Ila Technologies Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCR 16	Singapore	Cited for the definition of material facts as necessary for formulating a complete cause of action.
Arovin Ltd and another v Hadiran Sridjaja	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 117	Singapore	Cited for the requirement to provide details of pleaded contracts, variations, or cancellations.
Surge Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Powertec Engineers Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2002] SGHC 280	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party may be compelled to disclose the names of its witnesses when producing required particulars.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court may bifurcate a trial if it is just and convenient to do so, especially if substantial cost and time is likely to be saved.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 918	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court may bifurcate a trial if it is just and convenient to do so, especially if substantial cost and time is likely to be saved.
Scintronix Corp Ltd v Ho Kang Peng and another	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 28	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts in Singapore have been more amenable to bifurcate hearings in recent years.
Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 795	Singapore	Cited regarding the evidence needed for the determination of liability.
Industrial & Commercial Bank Ltd v PD International Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 382	Singapore	Cited regarding the evidence needed for the determination of liability.
Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 7)	England and Wales High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 1014	England and Wales	Cited regarding the evidence needed for the determination of liability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Order 18 rule 12(3) of the Rules of Court (Cap 332, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
O 33 r 2 of the ROC	Singapore
O 110 r 3 of the ROC	Singapore
Order 33 rules 2 and 3 of the ROC	Singapore
Order 38 rules 1 to 3 of the ROC	Singapore
O 110 r 23 of the ROC	Singapore
O 110 r 51 of the ROC	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Further and Better Particulars
Bifurcated Trial
Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief
Repudiation
Aircraft Purchase Agreement

15.2 Keywords

Pleadings
Rules of Court
Witness Attendance
Further and Better Particulars
Bifurcation of Trial

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Pleadings	80
Civil Procedure	75
Civil Practice	75
Rules of court	70
Evidence	50
Witnesses	30
Attendance	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Evidence