Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng: Interrogatories, Solicitor-Client Privilege & Relevance in Share Purchase Dispute
In Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the dismissal of the Plaintiff's application for leave to serve interrogatories on Rey Foo Jong Han, the former solicitor of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, in a dispute over the purchase of shares in Lee Kim Tah Holdings Ltd. The Plaintiff claimed half the purchase price of the first tranche of shares, while the Defendant alleged a 'Precedent Agreement' involving a third party. The court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal, finding the interrogatories relevant and necessary for a fair disposal of the action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff’s appeal allowed; the Plaintiff was granted leave to serve interrogatories on Rey Foo Jong Han. The Plaintiff would pay Rey Foo costs on an indemnity basis, such costs to be agreed between themselves, and that such costs and the costs of the application and of the appeal be costs in the cause.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case regarding application for interrogatories on a former solicitor in a share purchase dispute, addressing solicitor-client privilege and relevance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foo Ko Hing | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Foo Chee Heng | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Rey Foo Jong Han | Other | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tongel Yeo | T-G Yeo & Tan |
| Valerie Tan | Allen & Gledhill |
| P Padman | KS Chia Gurdeep & Param |
4. Facts
- Rey Foo Jong Han was the former solicitor of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
- Rey Foo was instructed to act for them in the sale and purchase of shares in Lee Kim Tah Holdings Ltd.
- The Plaintiff is claiming half the purchase price of the first tranche of shares.
- The Defendant averred that there was a 'Precedent Agreement' between him, the Plaintiff and one Mr Ong Puay Koon.
- The Plaintiff denied the existence of any 'Precedent Agreement'.
- The Plaintiff sought leave to serve interrogatories on Rey Foo.
5. Formal Citations
- Foo Ko Hing v Foo Chee Heng, Suit 792/2001, RA 49/2002, [2002] SGHC 70
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Rey Foo Jong Han instructed by Plaintiff and Defendant to act in the sale and purchase of shares. | |
| Sale and Purchase Agreement dated. | |
| Plaintiff’s solicitors sent letter asking for confirmation that the Defendant had no objections to them interviewing Rey Foo and inspecting his file. | |
| Inspection of the file maintained by M/s K S Chia Gurdeep & Param. | |
| Defendant’s solicitors stated that their client does not waive privilege in respect of any instructions/communications between himself and Mr Rey Foo. | |
| Plaintiff took out application for leave to serve interrogatories on Rey Foo Jong Han. | |
| Rey Foo’s firm stated that the interrogatories were not necessary. | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed Plaintiff’s application for leave to serve interrogatories. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interrogatories
- Outcome: The court allowed the Plaintiff's appeal and granted leave to serve interrogatories on Rey Foo Jong Han.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Relevance of interrogatories
- Necessity of interrogatories
- Solicitor-Client Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that there was no question of solicitor-client privilege in the interrogatories in issue because both parties were former clients of the solicitor in respect of the same matter.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to serve interrogatories
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perry v Smith | N/A | Yes | (1842) 9 M & W 681 | N/A | Cited regarding the distinction between communication to a solicitor in the character of one party’s own legal advisor and communication to him in the adverse character of legal advisor for the other party. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 26A Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 128 Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interrogatories
- Solicitor-client privilege
- Precedent Agreement
- Sale and Purchase Agreement
- Shares
- Relevance
15.2 Keywords
- Interrogatories
- Solicitor-client privilege
- Evidence Act
- Rules of Court
- Share purchase agreement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Solicitor-client privilege | 90 |
| Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Legal Ethics