CRI v CRJ: Application for Pre-Action Discovery and Interrogatories in Unjust Enrichment and Tort of Deceit Claim
In CRI v CRJ, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 April 2022 and 25 May 2022, the applicant, CRI, sought pre-action discovery and interrogatories against the respondent, CRJ, to determine the viability of claims in unjust enrichment or the tort of deceit. The applicant suspected that the respondent had deceived him regarding the existence or paternity of twins, for whom he had paid medical expenses. The court granted the application, finding it necessary for the applicant to access information to establish the viability of his claims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for pre-action discovery and interrogatories granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The applicant sought pre-action discovery and interrogatories to determine if he had a viable claim in unjust enrichment or tort of deceit against the respondent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Benjamin Niroshan Bala | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Dhaniyah Binte Hishammudin | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The Respondent informed the Applicant that she was pregnant with fraternal twins.
- The Respondent repeatedly informed the Applicant that he was the biological father of the twins.
- The Applicant paid out at least S$314,000 to the Respondent for medical expenses.
- The Applicant continually pressed the Respondent to provide proof of the existence of the twins.
- The Respondent provided copies of alleged birth certificates and a picture of two babies.
- The birth certificates showed that the twins were delivered in [Y] Hospital instead of [X] Hospital.
- The Applicant suspected that he may have been deceived by the Respondent.
5. Formal Citations
- CRI v CRJ, Originating Summons No 904 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 127
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent informed the Applicant that she was pregnant with fraternal twins. | |
| Respondent informed the Applicant that the twins were born. | |
| Applicant continually pressed the Respondent to provide proof of the existence of the twins. | |
| Applicant searched for birth records relating to the twins on the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority website. | |
| Sealing order granted by Philip Jeyaretnam J. | |
| Court heard the application for pre-action discovery and pre-action interrogatories. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Pre-action Discovery
- Outcome: The court found that pre-action discovery was necessary to allow the Applicant access to information concerning the existence of the twins, and assuming the twins did exist, information which would establish whether they were his biological children.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 185
- [2016] SGHC 74
- [2017] 4 SLR 684
- [2014] 4 SLR 478
- Pre-action Interrogatories
- Outcome: The court found that pre-action interrogatories was necessary to allow the Applicant access to information concerning the existence of the twins, and assuming the twins did exist, information which would establish whether they were his biological children.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 2 SLR 208
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that without knowledge of the non-existence of the twins, or whether they are his children, the Applicant would not be able to assess the viability of his claim in unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1991] 2 AC 548
- [1994] 3 SLR(R) 836
- [2018] 2 SLR 655
- [2002] 2 SLR(R) 136
- [2016] 3 SLR 845
- [2018] 1 SLR 239
- [2018] AC 275
- [2013] 3 SLR 801
- [2017] 4 SLR 1315
- Tort of Deceit
- Outcome: The court found that the application for pre-action discovery and interrogatories would allow the Applicant to determine the truth of the matter – did the twins exist? And if they did, was he the biological father?
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
8. Remedies Sought
- Pre-action discovery
- Pre-action interrogatories
9. Cause of Actions
- Unjust Enrichment
- Tort of Deceit
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ching Mun Fong v Standard Chartered Bank | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 185 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-action discovery allows a potential plaintiff to determine if he has a good cause of action. |
| Toyota Tsusho (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v United Overseas Bank Ltd & another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 74 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-action discovery allows a potential plaintiff to determine if he has a good cause of action. |
| Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd v DealStreetAsia Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 684 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pre-action discovery allows a potential plaintiff to determine if he has a good cause of action. |
| Haywood Management Ltd v Eagle Aero Technology Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 478 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must consider the intended cause of action when assessing whether an applicant possesses sufficient knowledge about the viability of its claim. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 208 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the clearer the cause of action that a claimant can put before the court, the easier it will be to ascertain the relevance and necessity of the pre-action interrogatories to the proceedings. |
| Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | United Kingdom | Cited as the UK decision where unjust enrichment was formally recognised. |
| Seagate Technology Pte Ltd v Goh Han Kim | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 836 | Singapore | Cited as the Singapore Court of Appeal decision where unjust enrichment was formally recognised. |
| Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that restitution for unjust enrichment is a distinct and new branch of the law of obligations. |
| Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 136 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. |
| Singapore Swimming Club v Koh Sin Chong Freddie | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 845 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of an unjust enrichment claim and that courts are generally cautious not to recognise new grounds of recovery too freely. |
| Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. |
| Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2018] AC 275 | United Kingdom | Cited for the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of an unjust enrichment claim. |
| BMM v BMN and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1315 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a mistake of fact could also encompass a mistake as to the paternity of one’s children. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the tort of deceit. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 24 r 7 of the Rules of Court |
| O 26A r 2 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action discovery
- Pre-action interrogatories
- Unjust enrichment
- Tort of deceit
- Fraternal twins
- Biological father
- Medical expenses
- Birth certificates
15.2 Keywords
- pre-action discovery
- pre-action interrogatories
- unjust enrichment
- tort of deceit
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 80 |
| Civil Litigation | 75 |
| Misrepresentation | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Torts
- Restitution