Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute: Letter of Request & Subpoena Application in Defamation Suit
In Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute, the plaintiff, Karan Bagga, sued the defendant, Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute, for damages arising from allegedly defamatory statements. The plaintiff applied for letters of request to examine eight overseas witnesses and to subpoena three local witnesses. The High Court dismissed both applications, finding that the evidence sought was not necessary for the purposes of justice. The court ordered the plaintiff to bear the defendant's costs fixed at $5000.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Karan Bagga's applications for letters of request to examine overseas witnesses and to subpoena local witnesses in his defamation suit against Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Karan Bagga | Plaintiff | Individual | Applications dismissed | Lost | |
| Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute | Defendant | Corporation | Costs awarded | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Charis Toh Si Ying | CLASIS LLC |
| Koh Jun Xiang | CLASIS LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claims damages from the defendant for allegedly defamatory statements.
- Plaintiff sought to examine eight witnesses based overseas.
- Plaintiff sought to subpoena three witnesses based in Singapore and dispense with their AEICs.
- Defendant argued the foreign witnesses' evidence was not material and costs would outweigh benefits.
- Defendant objected to subpoenas for local witnesses, arguing their evidence was irrelevant.
- The plaintiff was accredited as an inspector under the CDI-M Scheme in November 2013.
- The defendant suspended the plaintiff on 28 October 2016 pending a review process, before eventually revoking his licence permanently with effect from 7 February 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute, Suit No 30 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 3879 and 4340 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 97
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff accredited as an inspector under the CDI-M Scheme. | |
| Defendant informed of concerns over the plaintiff’s excessive fees. | |
| Defendant received a formal complaint from MTM Ship Management Singapore regarding the plaintiff’s alleged excessive fees. | |
| Defendant suspended the plaintiff pending a review process. | |
| Defendant revoked the plaintiff’s license permanently. | |
| Plaintiff filed a data subject access request with the defendant. | |
| Plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant before the High Court of England & Wales. | |
| High Court endorsed a settlement of the UK proceedings in the form of a Tomlin order. | |
| Suit No 30 of 2022 filed in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. | |
| Plaintiff filed 3rd Affidavit of Karan Bagga. | |
| Plaintiff indicated specific questions to be put to the individual witnesses will be transmitted by this date. | |
| Hearing of the parties. | |
| Judgment issued. | |
| Trial scheduled to take place. |
7. Legal Issues
- Issuance of letter of request to foreign judicial authorities for examining witnesses in foreign jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff had not shown that it would be necessary for the purposes of justice for the eight Foreign Witnesses to be examined out of jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Necessity for the purposes of justice
- Materiality of evidence
- Costs of examination
- Delay to proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2006] SGHC 161
- [2007] EWCA Civ 313
- [2010] 3 SLR 110
- Issuance of subpoena requiring attendance of witnesses
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff had not shown that the evidence of the Local Witnesses would be relevant and/or material to the issues in dispute.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of evidence
- Materiality of evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 110
8. Remedies Sought
- General damages
- Aggravated damages
- Special damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
- Malicious falsehood
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Maritime
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kea Meng Kwang and Another v Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (Asia Pacific) Ltd and Others | High Court | Yes | [2006] SGHC 161 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may decline to grant an application for examination of a proposed witness if the evidence is not material. |
| Honda Giken Kogyou Kabushiki Kaisha v KJM Superbikes Ltd | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 313 | England and Wales | Cited for guidance on the relevant considerations in the grant of letters of request. |
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that every litigant has a general right to bring all evidence relevant to his case to the court’s attention and the applicable principles for issuance of subpoenas. |
| Credit Suisse v Lim Soon Fang Bryan | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 414 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the facts of the present case from a case where the court made orders for the examination of witnesses residing in Taiwan. |
| Auto Clean ‘N’ Shine Services v Eastern Publishing Associates Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a balance should be struck between the need to comply with the rules and the parties’ right to call witnesses whom they deem necessary to establish their case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 39 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 39 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 39 Rule 3(3) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 38 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 38 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 38 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Parliament and Council Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Letter of request
- Subpoena
- Defamation
- Malicious falsehood
- Accreditation
- Excessive fees
- Publication
- Justification
- Qualified privilege
- Malice
15.2 Keywords
- Letter of request
- Subpoena
- Defamation
- Witness examination
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence Law | 90 |
| Defamation | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Malicious Falsehood | 70 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation