Kang Hwee Gee J:

[1] This is an application by the plaintiff to strike out para 10 of the first defendant's defence on the ground that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious and that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action or is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, pursuant to Rules of the High 1980 O 18 r 19(1) of the ('RHC').

[2] The suit itself involves a straightforward claim by the plaintiff now a judge of the court of Appeal, for the return of a law library and a request to discontinue the use of his name as the name of defendants' law firm.

[3] There is also a counterclaim by the first defendant but it is unrelated to the present application.

The Statement Of Claim

[4] The plaintiffs statement of claim discloses that he was a former partner of the legal firm which bears his name, Sri Ram & Co.

[5] Upon being elevated to the court of Appeal as an appeal court judge in 1994, the plaintiff relinquished his partnership in the firm to the first defendant and two other partners, Mr Manjit Singh and Ms Fiona Bodipalar.

[6] The plaintiff contends that he had left the use of the law library which he claimed sole ownership of, for the use of the partners until such time as he may require it back for his own use. As for the use of his name as the name of the firm, the plaintiff contends that just before his retirement from the firm the first defendant requested that he and the other partners be permitted to retain it for their practice.

[7] By paras 13 to 16 of the statement of claim, the plaintiff pleaded that sometime in 1997, he requested the a fore mentioned partners to cease using his name as the firm's name. They had initially agreed to his request, but subsequently the first defendant requested that they be permitted to continue to use the name. He had acceded to that request.

[8] Sometime in February 2005, he requested the first defendant as the senior-most partner for the return of the law library and to discontinue the name. He received a reply by letter dated 15 February 2005 from the first defendant rejecting both his requests.

The Defence

[9] The first defendant disputes the plaintiff's claim to the proprietorship of the law library and the name of the firm. The library it is averred was built up from funds provided by the firm and had after the plaintiff left been enlarged by the purchase of additional books at substantial expense.

[10] The first defendant's defence however, rests essentially on the averment that before leaving the bar for the bench the plaintiff had by an oral agreement relinquished absolutely to him for a stated monetary consideration the share of the partnership, the law library and the use of the firm's name which carried a substantial goodwill in view of the plaintiff's high standing at the Bar. The said consideration was paid later to the plaintiff from fees collected from a client. Upon acquiring the plaintiff's share, he then invited Mr Manjit Singh and Ms Fiona Bodipalar to join him in a new partnership.

[11] It is contended that the plaintiff no longer has any residual interest in the firm and is therefore not entitled to claim the return of the library nor to seek the order that the defendants discontinue the use of the firm's name.

Paragraph 10

[12] The first defendant went on to plead under para 10 of his defence (the subject matter of this application) that the plaintiff had a motive for requesting for the return of the law library and for wanting the defendants to cease using his name as the name of the firm. To appreciate the nature of the plaintiff's complaint, it is necessary to reproduce the paragraph as follows:

EVENTS & MOTIVE RESULTING IN THE BREACH OF THE ORAL AGREEMEMT

10 With respect to paras 13 to 16 of the statement of claim, the first defendant states as follows:

(a) sometime in August 2004, the plaintiff telephoned the first defendant requesting that his spouse, Datin Chandra Sri Ram Nee Ramamoorthy ('Datin Chandra') who had qualified as a la