CZV v KANAGAVIJAYAN NADARAJAN T/A KANA & CO

[2023] SGHC 85 High Court (General Division) 5 April 2023 HC/OA 137/2023

1 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	5 April 2023
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 5 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Leave

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (2)

D'Bi An LLC Firm

Christine Chuah Hui Fen Counsel for the applicant

Parties (2)

CZV Applicant

Kanagavijayan Nadarajan t/a Kana & Co Respondent

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).

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.