JUDGMENT

Anand Ponnudurai J:

Introduction

[1] This judgment deals with the often-recurring situation of parties attempting to adduce further documents, expert reports and witnesses after a trial has commenced and the issue that arose in this case was whether the Court should exercise its discretion to allow the same.

[2] The trial of this matter proceeded in January 2024 with the Plaintiff calling three witnesses including an expert witness who was cross- examined by learned Counsel for the Defendant. The matter was then adjourned to 21 March 2024 for the Defendant to produce its two witnesses as indicated earlier with witness statements having been filed accordingly. However, on 4 March 2024, the Defendant filed a witness statement of one Andrew Heng (encl 35) and an expert report as reflected at pp 9 to 887 of the Defendant's Additional Bundle of Document (Enclosures 36-43), indicating its intention to call him as an additional witness. This then led to two applications being filed in relation to this issue of whether or not the Defendant could call Andrew Heng as the Defendant's expert witness.

[3] The Plaintiff then filed an application through encl 45 seeking an Order that the Defe