The court ruled that cross-examinations in interlocutory matters are rarely granted, emphasizing that sufficient evidence must be provided to justify such requests, especially in relation to a party's mental capacity.

JUDGMENT

Liza Chan Sow Keng JC:

[1] There are four applications before the Court - enclosure ("Encl") 418 and Encl 420 made by the 3rd defendant whilst Encls 425 & 428 are made by the 2nd defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff and Lau Yoke Leong ("LYL") on their affidavits filed in support of Encl 399. All four applications were filed pursuant to O 38 r 2(2) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") and/or under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

[2] On 8 April 2022, I dismissed all four applications with costs. As the applications were related, it is convenient to deal with all four enclosures in one judgment. This judgment as such contains the full reasons for dismissal of Encl 418, Encl 420, Encl 425 and 428.

Background

[3] The plaintiff, 89 years old, is a director and shareholder of United Eastern Resources, the 1st defendant. She is the mother of the 3rd defendant who is the other director and shareholder of United Eastern Resources.

[4] In 2013, the plaintiff filed this Originating Summons ("OS") under s 181 of the Companies Act 1965 ( " CA 1965") alleging oppressive conduct on the part of the 3rd defendant in relation to her management of the affairs of United Eastern Resources and Safety Capital, the 2nd defendant. Allegations were made against the 3rd defendant and other defendants for misuse of funds. The plaintiff is also asking back for shares in certain companies registered in the daughter's name claiming she is a nominee for the plaintiff and the daughter had pre-signed resignation letters as director and share transfer forms The authenticity of these documents is disputed by the daughter and to be tried.

[5] Pending disposal of the OS, the plaintiff filed an application for an interim injunction to prevent the 3rd defendant from dealing with the funds of the 1st and 2nd defendants without the prior written consent of the plaintiff. A Consent Order was entered into on 21 February 2013 during the hearing of the application. The Consent Order was then amended on 22 March 2013 requiring 7 days' prior notice before making payment ("Consent Order"). It reads:

"By consent, it is agreed that pending the hearing and decision of the High Court on encl 1 [the Originating Summons main suit], the 3rd defendant will not deal with the funds of the 1st and 2nd defendants outside the ordinary course of business, provided that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants are at liberty to use the 1st and 2nd defendants' funds to pay taxes, tax liabilities and operating expenses. Seven (7) days beforeWithin ten (10) working days of making the aforesaid permitted payments, the relevant defendant who pays the monies shall give written monthly notice with sufficient particulars of the same to the plaintiff's solicitors."

[6] The plaintiff claimed that it was recently discovered that there are various irregularities and discrepancies pertaining to the payment of "staff costs" by the 2nd defendant to World Executive Search Sdn Bhd ("WES"). The discrepancies and irregularities suggest that the funds of the 2nd defendant are being dissipated pending disposal of this OS. It was alleged that the 3rd defendant is in control of WES. The 2 shareholders of WES are the 3rd defendant and her husband, one Jonny, with the 3rd defendant holding 99,999 units of share in WES and Johny holding 1 unit of shares. The board of directors is also comprised of the 3rd defendant and Johny.

[7] As such, Encl 399 was filed by the plaintiff seeking for discovery against the 2nd and 3rd defendant, and also WES for amongst others:

7.1. the discovery of documents in relation to the payments made by the 2nd defendant, in respect of staff cost, cost of accounts manager, administrative executive, and secretary to WES for the years of 2013 to 2021; and

7.2. the Consent Order dated 21 February 2013 (amended on 22 March 2013) be set aside or varied to include an obligation by the 1st,2nd, 3rd defendant as the case may be, to render sufficient particulars of payments.

[8] The hearing of Encl