High Court of Singapore - [2024] SGHC 310 - Judgment - Civil Procedure, Equity and Trusts principles

Aug 24, 2026

Upload by Angel

Judgment addresses permission to adduce new affidavit evidence-in-chief after the deadline for filing and exchange has elapsed, applying a two-stage relevance and prejudice analysis and considering whether any undue prejudice arises near the start of trial. The decision also considers principles for amendments to pleadings, including whether a late, responsive amendment to a reply should be allowed. Substantive issues span equity and trusts, including fiduciary conflicts, clean hands, fiduciary and trustee duties, statutory and common law standards of care, and remedies such as account on wilful default, surcharging, and falsification.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages182

Reading Time7 h 39 min

AccessFree to download

INTRODUCTION

THE UNDISPUTED FACTS

THE PARTIES’ APPLICATIONS AT THE TRIAL

SUM 678 (AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS)

IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2024] SGHC 310 Suit No 521 of 2021 Between (1) Devin Jethanand Bhojwani (2) Dilip Jethanand Bhojwani (3) Sandeep Jethanand Bhojwani …Plaintiffs And Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani …Defendant JUDGMENT [Civil Procedure—Affidavits—Principles applicable to grant of permission to adduce new affidavit of evidence-in-chief after deadline for filing and exchanging of affidavits of evidence-in-chief between litigants has elapsed—Two-stage test of relevance and prejudice for allowing new affidavit of evidence-in-chief to be admitted into evidence—Whether undue prejudice is occasioned to litigant where opposing party seeks to introduce new affidavit of evidence-in-chief addressing new points of fact close to start of civil trial after deadline for affidavits of evidence-in-chief to be filed and exchange between them has passed] [Civil Procedure—Pleadings—Amendment—Principles applicable to grant of permission to amend pleadings—Whether to allow amendment of reply close to start of civil trial where amendment is responsive to pleading in amended defence] Version No 2: 06 Dec 2024 (11:35 hrs) [Equity—Fiduciary relationships—Fiduciary relationship of trustee and beneficiary—Whether fiduciary breached no-conflict rule—Whether fiduciary placed himself in position where duty to principal and personal interest may conflict in approving amendment to company constitution negating rights of trust property in form of preference share whilst holding ordinary shares in same company as absolute owner] [Equity—Maxims—Defences—Whether beneficiaries alleging breaches of trust came to court of equity with clean hands—Relationship between clean hands doctrine in equity and Ochroid Trading approach to illegality doctrine in common law] [Equity—Remedies—Account—Account on wilful default basis—Applicable test for showing wilful default of trustee—Whether trustee displayed want of ordinary prudence in conduct and administration of trust][Succession and Wills—Construction—Application of armchair principle to construction of meaning of testament constituting express testamentary trust —Whether testament on proper construction conferred power on trustee to effect conversion of preference share in company held on trust into ordinary share notwithstanding trustee holds ordinary shares in same company as absolute owner] [Trusts—Breach of trust—Exclusion of liability—Construction of exclusion of liability clause—Restrictive interpretation of clause purporting to exclude liability of trustee—Armitage v Nurse approach to construction of exclusion of liability clauses in trusts instruments—Whether phrase “absolute discretion” in trust instrument enlarged trustee’s powers—Whether phrase“absolute discretion” abridged trustee’s duties—Whether phrase “absolute discretion” amounted to valid and enforceable exclusion of liability clause][Trusts—Breach of trust—Remedies—Remedy of surcharging—Application of remedy of surcharging to default of trustee on management stewardship duty—Causal inquiry to identify what prudent trustee would have done in hypothetical assessment of how trustee should have acted—Whether hypothetical prudent trustee would have approved amendment to company constitution negating rights of trust property in form of preference share without accretion of equivalent value to trust estate to compensate for corresponding loss of market value of share] [Trusts—Breach of trust—Remedies—Remedy of falsification—Application of remedy of falsification to default of trustee on custodial stewardship duty—No causal inquiry where substitutive remedy of falsification is engaged—Disallowing sale of company shares held on trust where trust shares were sold by trustee at sale price below market value with corresponding obligation on trustee to reconstitute trust estate in specie] Version No 2: 06 Dec 2024 (11:35 hrs) [Trusts—Trustees—Duties—Statutory duty of ca

FAQs

When will the court permit a new affidavit of evidence-in-chief after the filing deadline has passed?

Permission depends on a two-stage test assessing relevance and whether admitting the new affidavit would cause prejudice, including consideration of any undue prejudice to the opposing litigant near the trial start.

What principles govern permission to amend pleadings close to the start of trial?

The court applies principles for amendments to pleadings, including whether the proposed change is responsive to the pleading in an amended defence.

What trusts and fiduciary issues are examined in relation to trustee decision-making and conflicts?

The judgment examines fiduciary obligations, including potential breach of the no-conflict rule, whether beneficiaries come with clean hands, and how trustee duties and powers interact in administering and amending trust-related arrangements.

Aug 24, 2026

Upload by Angel