CZV v KANAGAVIJAYAN NADARAJAN T/A KANA & CO
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Choo Han Teck |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | D'Bi An LLC, Christine Chuah Hui Fen |
Source: [2023] SGHC 85, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Case Significance
CZV v Kanagavijayan Nadarajan (trading as Kana & Co) [2023] SGHC 85 was decided by Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, with judgment reserved and delivered on 5 April 2023 in Originating Application No 137 of 2023. The respondent ("Mr K") is the lawyer for a husband in ongoing divorce proceedings against his wife, the applicant ("Ms L"). After Ms L sent Mr Y a WhatsApp message on 15 December 2021 containing allegations about Mr K's conduct, which Mr Y forwarded to Mr K, Mr K sued Ms L for defamation in August 2022; Ms L applied to strike out that claim, arguing the message was inadmissible as it was protected by marital privilege under s 124(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed).
[2023] SGHC 85 explained
CZV v KANAGAVIJAYAN NADARAJAN T/A KANA & CO ([2023] SGHC 85) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 5 April 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2023] SGHC 85 about?
CZV v KANAGAVIJAYAN NADARAJAN T/A KANA & CO ([2023] SGHC 85) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 85 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 85 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 10. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The applicant, a wife in ongoing divorce proceedings, sought leave to appeal after her application to strike out a defamation claim by her husband's lawyer was dismissed, the claim arising from a forwarded WhatsApp message. She argued the message was inadmissible as protected by marital privilege under s 124(1) of the Evidence Act 1893. The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding there were triable issues, including whether the message might be adduced by other means, suited to resolution at trial.
What was the issue in CZV v Kanagavijayan Nadarajan [2023] SGHC 85?
The case concerned whether a WhatsApp message sent by wife "Ms L" on 15 December 2021, later forwarded to her husband's lawyer "Mr K", was protected by marital privilege under s 124(1) of the Evidence Act. Ms L applied to strike out Mr K's defamation suit on that basis.
Why did Ms L apply to strike out the defamation claim in [2023] SGHC 85?
Ms L argued the WhatsApp Message underpinning Mr K's August 2022 defamation claim was inadmissible because it was a marital communication protected by marital privilege under s 124(1) of the Evidence Act 1893. Choo Han Teck J heard the strike-out application in Originating Application No 137 of 2023.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (1)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHC 85)