Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co: Video Link Evidence and Witness Attendance in Negligence Claim
In Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's decision to dismiss an application for an overseas witness, Mr. Tejinder Singh Sekhon, to testify via video link in a negligence claim. Mr. Anil Singh Gurm, the appellant, sued J S Yeh & Co and Ms. Yasmin binte Abdullah, the respondents, alleging negligence in handling the purchase of a residential property. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granting leave for Mr. Sekhon to testify via video link.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding video link evidence for an overseas witness in a negligence claim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granting leave for the witness to testify via video link.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anil Singh Gurm | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Yasmin Binte Abdullah | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| J S Yeh & Co | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Sekhon sought to purchase a house in Singapore but could not due to restrictions on foreign nationals' ownership.
- Mr. Sekhon asked the appellant to purchase the property as his nominee.
- The appellant alleged that the respondents advised that the arrangement was acceptable.
- The respondents disputed this version of events, claiming they advised against the arrangement.
- The appellant acquired the property and later sold it, returning the proceeds to Mr. Sekhon.
- The Commercial Affairs Department commenced an investigation into the purchase.
- The appellant was charged with an offence under s 23 of the Residential Property Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another, Civil Appeal No 164 of 2018, [2020] SGCA 05
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Sekhon sought to purchase a house in Singapore. | |
| Mr. Sekhon applied for permanent residency in Singapore. | |
| Mr. Sekhon engaged JSY to act as his solicitors. | |
| Mr. Sekhon approached the appellant to purchase the property as his nominee. | |
| A fresh option to purchase the Property was issued by the vendors in the appellant’s favour. | |
| The appellant acquired the Property. | |
| Mr Sekhon left Singapore for Australia. | |
| The Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force commenced an investigation. | |
| Mr Sekhon remitted about $2m to the appellant. | |
| The appellant was charged with an offence under s 23 of the RPA. | |
| The Prosecution informed the appellant that the proceeds from the sale of the Property were liable to confiscation. | |
| The appellant commenced Suit 580 against the respondents. | |
| The appellant filed the leave application to seek the court’s leave for Mr Sekhon to testify in Suit 580 via video link. | |
| The Judge heard the leave application. | |
| The Judge dismissed the leave application. | |
| The Judge granted the appellant leave to appeal against his decision. | |
| Court hearing. | |
| Judgment Date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Evidence via Video Link
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court erred in its interpretation of s 62A(2)(a) of the Evidence Act and granted leave for the witness to testify via video link.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'unable' in s 62A(2)(a) of the Evidence Act
- Balancing the right to adduce evidence with the need for fair proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 3 SLR 110
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 119
- [2005] 1 WLR 637
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the issue of negligence itself, as the appeal concerned a procedural matter regarding the admissibility of evidence. The underlying negligence claim remains to be determined.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of care of solicitors
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation of damages
- Public Policy Considerations in Admitting Evidence
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that granting leave for the witness to testify via video link would not contravene any public policy, as the witness was not actively evading justice and the appellant had a right to adduce all relevant evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether granting leave would facilitate evasion of justice
- Balancing the right of access to justice with the need to uphold the integrity of the legal system
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 1 WLR 637
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
- Legal costs incurred in criminal proceedings
- Loss of income
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd | 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 or her case to the attention of the court. |
| Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 221 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment under appeal, where the High Court Judge dismissed the leave application for Mr. Sekhon to testify via video link. |
| Sonica Industries Ltd v Fu Yu Manufacturing Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 119 | Singapore | Cited to support the submission that the court should adopt a low threshold in deciding whether leave should be granted for a witness to testify via video link. |
| Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2005] 1 WLR 637 | England | Cited regarding the policy considerations of allowing a witness to testify via video link when the witness is unwilling to enter the jurisdiction for fear of arrest. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 659 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Kok Chong Weng v Wiener Rober Lorenz and others (Ankerite Pte Ltd, intervener) | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can adopt a strained construction of a statutory provision if doing so would further its legislative purpose. |
| Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Chung and others | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 29 | Singapore | Cited by the respondents to submit that a witness’s unwillingness to travel to Singapore was a weighty factor against granting leave. |
| Moorview Developments Ltd v First Active plc | Irish High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 I.R 788 | Ireland | Cited for the distinction between claimants, defendants, and non-party witnesses in determining whether to grant leave for a witness to testify by video link. |
| Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 WLR 387 | England | Cited for the observation that a witness’s role in the proceedings will be a relevant consideration when determining if leave should be granted for the witness to testify via video link. |
| Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 562 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that a court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility would, and should, seldom hinge on that witness’s demeanour on the stand. |
| Asia-Pac Infrastructure Development Ltd v Ing Yim Leung Alexander and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 HKLRD 587 | Hong Kong | Cited for the observation that trial judges can 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. |
| McGlinn v Waltham Contractors Ltd and others (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [2006] EWHC 2322 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that trial judges can 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. |
| In Re Chow Kam Fai ex parte Rambas Marketing Co LLC | Court of First Instance | Yes | [2004] 1 HKLRD 161 | Hong Kong | Cited for the observation that the solemnity of the court atmosphere and the threat of immediate sanction was conducive to obtaining truthful testimony from a witness. |
| Flanagan v Britvic (NI) plc and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] NIQB 73 | Northern Ireland | Cited for the approach to the Court's determination of this kind of issue is not confined to a consideration of the parties. |
| Erceg (Millie) v Erceg (Lynette) (Mode of Evidence) | High Court | Yes | [2016] NZAR 85 | New Zealand | Cited for the New Zealand High Court granted an application by a mother for her adult son to testify as a witness via video link on the same basis. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the court has an interest in preserving and upholding its authority and dignity. |
| Re Chow Kam Fai David | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 HKC 645 | Hong Kong | Cited for the court would be unlikely to exercise its discretion to allow video link evidence from overseas witnesses who seek a collateral advantage in any way or are shown to be disrespectful of its authority. |
| Zainal bin Kuning and others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and another | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858 | Singapore | Cited for Mr Sekhon’s evidence in Suit 580, if given, would likely be inadmissible as hearsay evidence in the criminal trial unless Mr Sekhon turns up in person to testify in that trial. |
| Chua Boon Chye v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 922 | Singapore | Cited for Mr Sekhon’s evidence in Suit 580, if given, would likely be inadmissible as hearsay evidence in the criminal trial unless Mr Sekhon turns up in person to testify in that trial. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Video link evidence
- Overseas witness
- Leave application
- Residential Property Act
- Nominee
- Negligence
- Public policy
- Access to justice
- Evasion of justice
- s 62A Evidence Act
15.2 Keywords
- Video link
- Witness
- Evidence
- Negligence
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Civil procedure
- Residential Property Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Evidence | 75 |
| Video Evidence | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Litigation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence
- Legal Profession