The court upheld that non-served procedural notices under the ROC negate claims for document production, thereby dismissing the application for lack of merit.

[1] This is an application by the Defendant for the production of certain documents referred to in the Statement of Claim. The notice of application does not state the provision in Rules of 2012 (" ROC ") that the application is made under but counsel for the Defendant submitted at the hearing that the application is pursuant to Rules Of 2012, O 24 r 10. I dismissed the application and these are the full reasons for my decision.

Salient Background Facts

[2] The Plaintiff bank has granted facilities to one Century Marine S.A. ("the Borrower").

[3] Apart from the Borrower, the Plaintiff has also granted banking facilities to two (2) other borrowers. All the facilities were inter alia guaranteed by guarantees executed by Falcon Energy Group Limited and PT Bayu Maritim Berkah. The guarantors are the Defendants in this action.

[4] When the borrowers defaulted in the repayment of the amounts due, the Plaintiff filed 3 actions against each of the 3 borrowers and 3 separate actions against the Guarantors (one action against the Guarantors in respect of each borrower). This is one of the actions against the guarantors.

[5] The Plaintiff applied for summary judgment of its claim against the Defendants.

[6] By letter dated 25 October 2017 to the Plaintiff's solicitors Shook Lin & Bok ("SLB") the Defendants through their solicitors Vijay & Co requested for the documents set out in various paragraphs of the Statement of Claim.

[7] Vijay & Co act for all the defendants in the six (6) actions.

[8] By letter dated 22 November 2017 to the Defendants' solicitors, SLB informed them that the Plaintiff was agreeable to furnish the Defendants with the documents requested subject to reasonable photocopying charges being paid. In the interim, the Defendants were informed that certain documents can be seen at the various pages of the Plaintiff's Affidavit in support of the summary judgment application as pointed out in the letter.

[9] By letter dated 28 November 2017, the Defendants' solicitors requested SLB to furnish the documents requested within the next 7 days failing which they will have to make an application to Court.

[10] By letter dated 24 December 2017, the Defendants' solicitors reminded SLB to furnish the documents failing which they will be making an application therefore.

[11] By letter dated 28 December 2017, SLB reverted to the Defendants' solicitors and referred to all the six (6) actions filed by the Plaintiff and furnished copies of various documents to the Defendants' solicitors. The documents furnished by SLB were all the documents requested by the Defendants other than those which are already exhibited to the Plaintiff's Affidavits filed in one or more of the six (6) actions, as informed by SLB to the Defendants' solicitors by letter dated 22 November 2017.

[12] The Defendant's solicitors have not raised any objection regarding the action of SLB. Instead, the Defendant's solicitors duly paid the photocopying charges imposed by SLB for the photocopying of the documents forwarded to them.

[13] The Plaintiff's summary judgment application was initially fixed for hearing on 12 March 2018 at 2.30 pm. However, on 9 March 2018, the Defendants' solicitors had written to the Court to request for an adjournment of the hearing as the counsel for the Defendants Mr P Suppiah was not medically fit to attend to the said hearing due to "backache and sciatic pain".

[14] On 11 March 2018, the Defendants' solicitors had written to SLB that the Defendants' co-counsel Mr Vijay is also not medically fit to attend the hearing of the summary judgment application on 12 March 2018 and had sought for an adjournment of the said hearing.

[