Bhojwani v Bhojwani: Stay of Execution for Discovery Orders Pending Appeal

In Bhojwani v Bhojwani, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard applications from non-parties Shankar’s Emporium (Private) Limited, Malaya Silk Store Pte Ltd, and Liberty Merchandising Company (Private) Limited, and the defendant, Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani, for a stay of execution of discovery orders. The plaintiffs, Devin Jethanand Bhojwani, Dilip Jethanand Bhojwani, and Sandeep Jethanand Bhojwani, brought a claim against the defendant for breach of trust. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan JC, allowed the applications, citing concerns that the appeal against the discovery orders would be rendered nugatory if the documents were disclosed before the appeal was heard. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the plaintiffs but found it was not insurmountable.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Applications for stay of execution of discovery orders allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Stay of execution granted for discovery orders pending appeal in a breach of trust case. Concerns over document disclosure and potential prejudice were key.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Devin Jethanand BhojwaniPlaintiffIndividualStay of execution of discovery orders grantedNeutral
Dilip Jethanand BhojwaniPlaintiffIndividualStay of execution of discovery orders grantedNeutral
Sandeep Jethanand BhojwaniPlaintiffIndividualStay of execution of discovery orders grantedNeutral
Jethanand Harkishindas BhojwaniDefendantIndividualApplication for stay of execution of discovery orders allowedWon
Shankar’s Emporium (Private) LimitedNon-party, RespondentCorporationApplication for stay of execution of discovery orders allowedWon
Malaya Silk Store Pte LtdNon-party, RespondentCorporationStay of execution of discovery orders grantedWon
Liberty Merchandising Company (Private) LimitedNon-party, RespondentCorporationStay of execution of discovery orders grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thio Shen YiTSMP Law Corporation
Uday DuggalTSMP Law Corporation
Koh Li Qun KelvinTSMP Law Corporation
Nguyen Vu LanTSMP Law Corporation
Tan Li-Chern TerenceRobertson Chambers LLC
Suresh s/o DamodaraDamodara Ong LLC
Ong Ziying ClementDamodara Ong LLC
Darius Malachi Lim Wen HongDamodara Ong LLC
Lim Dao Yuan KeithDamodara Ong LLC
Brenan Mah Zhi XianDamodara Ong LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs claim against the defendant for breach of trust.
  2. Defendant is the trustee of a trust in which the plaintiffs and their mother are the named beneficiaries.
  3. Trust assets include shares in several private companies.
  4. Defendant struck off or dissolved a number of these companies.
  5. Plaintiffs appointed their expert on 20 December 2022.
  6. Parties agreed on the expert’s issues on 16 January 2023.
  7. Plaintiffs requested documents from the defendant and the Live Companies in January 2023.
  8. Defendant and Live Companies refused to provide some of the requested documents.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Devin Jethanand Bhojwani and others v Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani, Suit No 521 of 2021 (Summonses Nos 1168 and 1169 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 128

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed (Suit No 521 of 2021)
Plaintiffs appointed their expert
Parties agreed on the expert’s issues
Plaintiffs requested documents from the defendant
Plaintiffs requested documents from the Live Companies
Hearing for SUM 462 and SUM 463
Discovery allowed for most of the documents requested
Clarification of discovery orders
Original deadline for disclosure
Judgment delivered
Trial of the main action fixed to start

7. Legal Issues

  1. Stay of Execution
    • Outcome: The court granted the stay of execution, finding that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if the documents were disclosed before the appeal was heard.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Risk of appeal being rendered nugatory
      • Prejudice to parties

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Discovery of Documents
  2. Stay of Execution of Discovery Orders

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053SingaporeCited for the principle that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution.
Taylor, Joshua James and another v Sinfeng Marine Services Pte Ltd and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 248SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden is on the applicant to show special circumstances to justify a stay.
Naseer Ahmad Akhtar v Suresh Agarwal and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1032SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden is on the applicant to show special circumstances to justify a stay.
Lee Sian Hee (trading as Lee Sian Hee Pork Trader) v Oh Kheng Soon (trading as Ban Hon Trading Enterprise)Court of AppealYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 869SingaporeCited for the principle that a stay will be granted if there is no reasonable probability of getting back damages and costs that have been paid over, should the appeal succeed.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and others v Celestial Nutrifoods Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)Court of AppealYes[2015] 3 SLR 665SingaporeCited for the principle that the court must balance the interests of the parties to avoid prejudice.
Riddick v Thames Board Mills LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1977] QB 881England and WalesCited for the principle of the Riddick undertaking, which protects disclosed documents from improper use.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and other appeals and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 584SingaporeCited for clarifying the application of the Riddick undertaking using a three-category framework.
Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 2 SLR 578SingaporeCited for the principle that the Riddick undertaking prevents improper disclosure of documents to third parties.
Akai Holdings Ltd (in Compulsory Liq) & others v Ho Wing On Christopher & othersN/AYes[2009] HKCU 542Hong KongCited for the principle that undertakings can address concerns about documents being 'unseen' after disclosure.
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 821SingaporeCited for the principle that the court’s inherent powers should be exercised judiciously.
Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 353SingaporeCited for the principle that inherent powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Stay of execution
  • Discovery orders
  • Breach of trust
  • Riddick undertaking
  • Nugatory
  • Special circumstances
  • Issue estoppel
  • Res judicata

15.2 Keywords

  • stay of execution
  • discovery
  • appeal
  • breach of trust
  • Riddick undertaking

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice80
Civil Litigation75
Trust Law60
Evidence Law50
Fiduciary Duties40
Jurisdiction35
Company Law30
Commercial Disputes25
Arbitration20
Contract Law15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Discovery
  • Trust Law