JUDGMENT

Tee Ah Sing J

The learned counsel for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection in respect of the affidavit of Ngui Kwang Ing affirmed on 6 December 1996 on the ground that the affidavit did not state the deponent's residential nor business address. This is in contravention of O 41 r 1 of the Rules of the High Court 1980 ('the RHC'). In support, The Supreme Court Practice 1995 (Vol 1) Pt 1 at p 700 para 41/1/8 was cited. Paragraph 41/1/8 reads as follows:

Place of residence or work place . Affidavits giving no address, or only an illusory address, were rejected (Hyde v Hyde (1888) 59 LT 523). See also Re Levy (1889) 37 WR 396.

Paragraph (4) enables the deponent to an affidavit to give, not his place of residence, but the address at which he works when he is giving evidence by affidavit in a professional, business or other occupational capacity and in such case he must also state the position he holds and the name of his firm or employer if any. This, of course, is without prejudice to the power of the Court under r 4, to allow a defective or irregular affidavit to be filed or used in evidence and the larger power under O 2(2) to validate any irregularity in any document by