The court has discretionary power to recall witnesses and reopen cases post-trial to ensure justice, provided strong reasons are presented and no prejudice to the opposing party occurs.

A. Introduction

[1] This judgment discusses the Court's discretionary power to:

(1) allow a party under s 138(4) of the Evidence Act 1950 ( EA ) to recall the opposing party's expert witnesses for further crossexamination after the completion of a trial; and

(2) allow the party to reopen the party's case after trial has been completed solely for the purpose of the recall.

B. Background

[2] In the above six suits (6 Suits), purchasers (Plaintiffs) of six bungalows built and sold (6 Bungalows) by the defendant company (Defendant), have claimed that the Defendant has breached various provisions of six Sale and Purchase Agreements of the 6 Bungalows entered into by the Plaintiffs and Defendant.

[3] By consent of parties, the 6 Suits have been tried together (Trial).

[4] At the Trial:

(1) the Plaintiffs had called, among others, the following two architects to testify:

(a) Encik Mushahar bin Mohamed Suki (SP9); and

(b) Encik Adifazli bin Ahmad (SP10);

(2) on 21 July 2020, 22 July 2020 and 27 July 2020, SP9 and SP10 had been called by the Plaintiffs' learned Counsel, Mr Colin Andrew Pereira, to testify regarding the defects in the 6 Bungalows as alleged by the Plaintiffs [Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows)]. The Defendant's learned Counsel, Mr Rohan Arasoo A/L Jeyabalah, then cross-examined SP9 and SP10 on the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows);

(3) on 27 July 2020:

(a) after Mr Pereira's re-examination of SP9 and SP10, he applied to Court for their release as witnesses subject to recall by the Plaintiffs because after 27 July 2020, he wanted to conduct further examination-in-chief of SP9 and SP10 regarding the type of timber used in the construction of the 6 Bungalows (Timber Issue); and

(b) the Court then released SP9 and SP10 subject to recall by the Plaintiffs' learned Counsel;

(4) on 10 April 2021:

(a) Mr Pereira recalled SP9 and SP10 for further examination-in-chief regarding the Timber Issue;

(b) SP9 and SP10 were further cross-examined by Mr Rohan on the Timber Issue; and

(c) after further re-examination of SP9 and SP10 by Mr Pereira, the Court released SP9 and SP10 as witnesses without any condition [Court's Unconditional Release (SP9 and SP10)]; and

(5) on 17 February 2022, Mr Rohan informed the Court that the Defendant had closed the Defendant's case [Close (Defence Case)]. Hence, the Trial was concluded on 17 February 2022.

C. Defendant's Six Applications To Recall SP9 And SP10 For Further Cross-Examination

[5] On 17 March 2022, the Defendant filed six applications in the 6 Suits (Defendant's 6 Applications) for, among others, leave of Court to recall SP9 and SP10 for further cross-examination regarding the cost for the Plaintiffs to rectify the Alleged Defects (6 Bungalows) [Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows)].

[6] Mr Pereira had strenuously resisted the Defendant's 6 Applications on the following grounds:

(1) before SP9 and SP10 gave their expert opinions on 21 July 2020, SP9 and SP10 had affirmed affidavits [Affidavits (SP9 and SP10)] under O 40(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC). The Affidavits (SP9 and SP10) contained, among others, the expert views of SP9 and SP10 on Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows). The Defendant's solicitors had been served with the Affidavits (SP9 and SP10) and had prior actual notice of the expert opinions of SP9 and SP10 regarding Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows). Consequently, on 27 July 2020 Mr Rohan should have cross-examined SP9 and SP10 on Rectification Cost (6 Bungalows);

(2) SP9 and SP10 had been recalled by Mr Pereira on 10 April 2021 for further examination-in-chief on the Timber Issue. Hence, on 10 April 2021 Mr Rohan had a second opportunity to conduct further cross-examination of SP9 and SP10 regard