KARAN BAGGA v STICHTING CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION INSTITUTE

[2023] SGHC 97 High Court (General Division) 14 April 2023 HC/S 30/2022 ( HC/SUM 4340/2022,HC/SUM 3879/2022 )

5 cases cited (4 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Application dismissed

“After hearing the parties on 10 February 2023, I dismissed both applications.”

Source: [2023] SGHC 97, High Court (General Division), decided 14 April 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	14 April 2023
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Outcome	Application dismissed

Source: [2023] SGHC 97, High Court (General Division), decided 14 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Witnesses — Issue of subpoena requiring attendance of witnesses Civil Procedure — Witnesses — Issue of letter of request to foreign judicial authorities for examining witnesses in foreign jurisdiction — Applicable principles — Whether order “necessary for the purposes of justice”

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Parties (2)

Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute Defendant

Karan Bagga Plaintiff

Case Significance

KARAN BAGGA v STICHTING CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTION INSTITUTE [2023] SGHC 97 sets out the grounds of decision of See Kee Oon J in the General Division of the High Court, following a hearing on 10 February 2023, in Suit No 30 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 3879 and 4340 of 2022). Karan Bagga, a litigant-in-person in the business of marine surveying, sued the non-profit foundation Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute over eight sets of allegedly defamatory statements and malicious falsehoods; by SUM 3879 he sought to examine eight overseas witnesses and by SUM 4340 to subpoena three Singapore-based witnesses and dispense with their affidavits of evidence-in-chief. The court dismissed both applications.

Summary

Karan Bagga, a litigant-in-person suing Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute for damages over allegedly defamatory statements and malicious falsehoods relating to the revocation of his marine inspector accreditation, filed two applications: one to examine eight overseas-based witnesses by letter of request, and one to subpoena three Singapore-based witnesses and dispense with their affidavits of evidence-in-chief. The General Division of the High Court dismissed both applications.

What did the court decide in Karan Bagga v Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute [2023] SGHC 97?

See Kee Oon J dismissed both applications: SUM 3879, seeking to examine eight overseas witnesses, and SUM 4340, seeking to subpoena three Singapore-based witnesses and dispense with their affidavits of evidence-in-chief, in Suit No 30 of 2022.

What was Karan Bagga's underlying claim in [2023] SGHC 97?

Karan Bagga, a litigant-in-person in marine surveying, claimed damages against the non-profit foundation Stichting Chemical Distribution Institute over eight sets of statements he alleged were defamatory and/or malicious falsehoods, filing the two applications to strengthen his evidential case.