Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee: Video Link Evidence & Witness Testimony
In Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Wang Xiaopu's application for leave to give evidence via video link in a suit against Koh Mui Lee, Goh Ming Yi, Melissa (Wu Mingyi), and Goh Keng Meng, Jeremy (Wu Qingming). Wang, a Chinese national and Singapore Permanent Resident, sued the defendants, alleging that Dr. Goh Seng Heng (a judgment debtor from a previous case) had transferred assets to them to avoid creditors. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, emphasized the importance of physical presence for cross-examination and fairness, finding that the defendants would be prejudiced by remote testimony. The court also found that Wang was unwilling, but not unable, to travel to Singapore.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court denies video link evidence for Wang Xiaopu, emphasizing physical presence for fair cross-examination in a creditor action.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wang Xiaopu | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Koh Mui Lee | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Goh Ming Yi, Melissa (Wu Mingyi) | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Goh Keng Meng, Jeremy (Wu Qingming) | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Wang Xiaopu, a Chinese national and Singapore Permanent Resident, sued Dr. Goh's family members.
- Wang alleged Dr. Goh transferred assets to family to avoid creditors after a prior judgment.
- Wang sought to give evidence via video link due to COVID-19 travel concerns.
- Defendants argued that they would be prejudiced by remote cross-examination.
- The trial dates were known well in advance.
- Wang is the plaintiff in the suit.
5. Formal Citations
- Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee and others, Suit No 636 of 2020 (Summons No 5185 of 2021), [2022] SGHC 54
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wang Xiaopu obtained status as a Permanent Resident of Singapore | |
| Wang Xiaopu obtained judgment against Dr Goh Seng Heng | |
| Wang Xiaopu commenced action against Dr Goh's family members | |
| Wang Xiaopu filed application for leave to give evidence by way of video link | |
| Pre-trial conference held | |
| Hearing held; application dismissed | |
| Trial dates | |
| Hearing on application for leave to give evidence via video link | |
| Written grounds for decision provided |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Video Link Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled against the admissibility of video link evidence in this instance, citing potential prejudice to the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prejudice to parties
- Witness availability
- Technical feasibility
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of assets
- Monetary compensation
9. Cause of Actions
- Action to recover judgment debt
- Fraudulent transfer of assets
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy | N/A | Yes | [1924] 1 KB 256 | N/A | Cited for the principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. |
| Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 555 | Singapore | Cited for the general principle that a witness must physically be in court to testify and for the interpretation of section 62A(2)(a) of the Evidence Act. |
| Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 284 | Singapore | Cited to establish the prior judgment obtained by the plaintiff against Dr. Goh Seng Heng. |
| Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Ching and others | N/A | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 29 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that inconvenience does not equate to inability to travel. |
| Chua Eng Kok (Cai Rongguo) v Douglas Chew Kai Pi | District Court | Yes | [2021] SGDC 159 | Singapore | Cited regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on remote testimony, but distinguished based on context. |
| Sonica Industries Ltd v Fu Yu Manufacturing Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 119 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's consideration of unfair prejudice when determining if leave should be granted under s 62A of the EA. |
| Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 562 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd v Ing Yim Leung, Alexander and others | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 HKLRD 587 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd and others (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2006] EWHC 2322 (TCC) | England and Wales | Cited regarding the court's ability to take into account any particular deficiencies arising from the use of video link testimony when deciding on the weight to be assigned to a witness’s evidence. |
| Re Chow Kam Fai ex parte Rambas Marketing Co LLC | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 HKLRD 161 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the solemnity of the court atmosphere and the threat of immediate sanction. |
| Zooming into a New Age of Court Proceedings: Perspectives from the Court, Counsel and Witnesses | N/A | Yes | [2020] SAL Prac 19 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Auken Animal Husbandry Pty Ltd v 3RD Solution Investment Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 1153 | Australia | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Rooney v AGL Energy Limited (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 942 | Australia | Cited regarding the need to expose key witnesses to the processes of in-person examination and cross-examination. |
| ASIC v Wilson | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 873 | Australia | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Tetley v Goldmate Group Pty Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 913 | Australia | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 486 | Australia | Cited regarding the court's assessment of a witness's credibility. |
| Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd (No 3) | N/A | Yes | (2009) 181 FCR 152 | N/A | Cited regarding the traditional forensic benefits of in-person examination and cross-examination. |
| Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 4) | N/A | Yes | [2020] FCA 614 | Australia | Cited regarding the solemnity of the courtroom and its impact on witness testimony. |
| Hi-Tech Rubbers v Dai Ichi Intertrade Pte Ltd | District Court | Yes | [2018] SGDC 133 | Singapore | Cited regarding the necessary administrative and technical facilities for remote testimony. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Video link evidence
- Remote hearing
- Cross-examination
- Prejudice
- Creditor
- Judgment debtor
- Travel restrictions
- COVID-19 pandemic
15.2 Keywords
- video link
- evidence
- remote hearing
- Singapore
- court
- COVID-19
- travel
- witness
- cross-examination
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Video Link | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Technology and Law