Chao Hick Tin JC

In this action the plaintiffs claim the sum of $892,611.77 being the balance due from the defendant to the plaintiffs for goods sold and delivered and for commission and for certain partnership trading business in rubber and latex.

Soon after the institution of this action an application was made by the plaintiffs for summary judgment. This was refused by the deputy registrar who granted unconditional leave to defend. The plaintiffs appealed to the judge-in-chambers, who affirmed the decision of the deputy registrar.

In the amended defence filed herein the defendant avers that, subject to certain specified items, the goods allegedly sold and delivered to the defendant were, in fact, never sold and delivered. The defendant also alleges fraud. In regard to the claim relating to the partnership business in rubber and latex, the defendant counterclaims against the plaintiffs for moneys due to him in accordance with an oral agreement entered into between the parties in May 1976. In short, there is considerable dispute between the parties as regards partnership accounts as well as the accounts relating to the goods allegedly sold to the defendant.

Following a summons-for-directions made under O 25 of the RSC, the court on 20 January 1984 ordered that each party served on the other within 21 days a list of documents and filed an affidavit verifying the same. The court also ordered inspection of documents within 14 days of the service of the list.

On 26 August 1987, the defendant filed his list of documents and also made an application by way of summons-in-chambers (No 5845/87) asking for, inter alia, an order that the plaintiffs comply with the order of court of 20 January 1984 and that the defendant and such public accountants as might be nominated by the defendant be allowed access to all of the documents in the plaintiffs' list of documents. In his affidavit filed in support of this application, the defendant stated that:

(i) the balance sheets, upon which the plaintiffs based their claims, were not true and were deliberately drawn up to reflect artificial balances in favour of the plaintiffs;

(ii) there was an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant that neither party would rely on the balance sheets and that the true accounts would be worked out later;

(iii) that if the true accounts were examined it would be seen that goods which were claimed to have sold to the defendant were never sold; and

(iv) that the partnership business in rubber and latex should have shown a profit instead of a loss.

In the affidavit, the defendant expressly asked the plaintiffs to disclose certain primary documents for the period 1976–1980, and he gave his reasons why he needed those documents. The documents were: cash books, ledger books, bank credit/debit notes, sale contract files, purchase contract files, local sale bills and invoice books. The defendant said that he needed these documents to counter-check the plaintiffs' claims and to show that the claims could not be true — in the words of the defendant's accountant, they require 'access to Manilal's books, and original contracts and invoices in order to determine the source of goods and their ultimate disposal'.

On 27 August 1987, the plaintiffs filed their list of documents (in compliance with the order of court of 20 January 1984) and an affidavit verifying the same. On 31 August 1987, when the application of the defendant in summons-in-chambers No 5845–87 came up, that became an application whether to order a further and better list of documents. After hearing the parties, the court ordered, inter alia, that:

1 The plaintiffs do comply with the order of court dated 20 January 1984 by filing a further list of documents and verifying the same by affidavit by 28 September 1987.

2 In default of compliance with paragraph one by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' action herein be struck off.

A year later on 21 September 1988, the defendant applied by summons-in-chambers