TEO BEE HIONG AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH CHINA FINANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1993, No. 138
(Civil)

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Yang, C.J.:

1. This is the judgment of the Court.

2. We are informed by Mr Wong for the appellants that only order (2) of Godfrey, J's order is now the subject of an appeal. There is no appeal on the other orders.

3. Nothing has been said on behalf of the appellants which shows that either Mortimer, JA, or Godfrey, J, exercised their discretion wrongly in making the orders they did. Having considered the interrogatories and the answers or purported answers given, we must come to the conclusion that there are no merits in this appeal. And particularly we want to stress that, in respect of Interrogatories 10, 12(i) and (iii), 16(iii), 35, 52, 53, 54 and 55(v), the appellants' comment was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an answer, or words of a similar import. As to Interrogatories 11, a counter question was asked. This is not good enough. We note Order 26, Rule 5 which is applicable when privilege is claimed. This rule the appellants have not followed: vice 26/5/1 of the White Book.

4. These being ordered interrogatories, Order 26, Rule 4(2) applies, and if a party wishes to object to the interrogatories on the ground of oppression or irrelevance, the objection should be raised before the judge who is considering whether leave to serve interrogatories should be given. In the present case, therefore, the question of oppression and irrelevance ought to have been resolved before Mortimer, J, or at the latest before Godfrey, J, under Order 26, Rule 8. The appellants have therefore failed to take the requisite steps open to them in the Rules of the Supreme Court.

5. Finally, we refer to the second ground of appeal, criticising Mortimer, J (as he then was) for the way he dealt with the matter. The criticism is not borne out by counsel's notes of what transpired before the learned judge or by any other evidence. There is in our view no cause for complaint against the judge.

6. No error of any sort on the part of either learned judge has been shown.

7. The appeal is dismissed. Unless the appellants answer the interrogatories by affidavit or affirmation, i.e. Interrogatories 10, 12, 16, 17, 35, 52, 53, 54, 55(v), 60 and 61 of the Schedule to the Plaintiffs' Summons dated 9 March 1993 by 5 p.m. on 28 September 1993, the Defence and Counterclaim herein be dismissed with costs. By indication from respondents' counsel, the problem regarding Interrogatory 8 no longer arises.

8. The respondents' Notice is withdrawn by leave of Court.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.