Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC 54
- Title: Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee and others
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of decision: 11 March 2022
- Date heard: 8 February 2022
- Judge: Lee Seiu Kin J
- Suit No: 636 of 2020
- Summons No: 5185 of 2021
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Wang Xiaopu
- Defendants/Respondents: (1) Koh Mui Lee; (2) Goh Ming Yi, Melissa (Wu Mingyi); (3) Goh Keng Meng, Jeremy (Wu Qingming)
- Legal area: Evidence — Witnesses
- Procedural posture: Application for leave under s 62A of the Evidence Act for a witness to give evidence via video-link
- Statutes referenced: Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), in particular s 62A; and “s 62A(5)” as part of the fairness constraint
- Cases cited (as reflected in the extract): Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another [2020] 1 SLR 555; Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another [2019] SGHC 284; Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Ching and others [2018] 4 SLR 29; Chua Eng Kok (Cai Rongguo) v Douglas Chew Kai Pi [2021] SGDC 159; R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
- Judgment length: 19 pages, 5,227 words
Summary
In Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee and others [2022] SGHC 54, the High Court considered an application for leave under s 62A of the Evidence Act for a witness to give evidence via live video-link from outside Singapore. The plaintiff, Wang Xiaopu, sought remote testimony because she was residing in Guangzhou and relied on COVID-19-related travel uncertainty and the risk of contracting COVID-19 if she travelled to Singapore to testify in person.
The court dismissed the application. While s 62A(1)(c) was satisfied because the witness was outside Singapore, the court emphasised that the statutory inquiry under s 62A(2) requires a careful assessment of the reasons for the witness being “unable” to give evidence in Singapore, the administrative and technical arrangements at the remote location, and whether any party would be unfairly prejudiced. The judge held that Wang had not shown that she was truly “unable” (as opposed to unwilling) to travel, and that the evidence did not establish health-related vulnerability that would make the COVID-19 risk legally relevant to “inability”.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute concerned alleged asset transfers designed to frustrate creditors. Wang Xiaopu (“Wang”) is a Chinese national ordinarily resident in Guangzhou. She is the director of Guangdong Marubi Biotechnology Co Ltd, a China-incorporated company manufacturing and selling facial and skincare products in China. Although Wang has held permanent resident status in Singapore since October 2013, she has never resided in Singapore.
Wang had previously sued and obtained judgment against Dr Goh Seng Heng (“Dr Goh”) in Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another [2019] SGHC 284. When the judgment debt remained unpaid, Wang commenced the present action against Dr Goh’s family members: Koh Mui Lee and two other defendants (his relatives). Wang’s pleaded case was that Dr Goh had transferred and/or acquired various assets or properties in the defendants’ names so as to put them beyond the reach of his creditors.
As part of the litigation, Wang applied for leave to give evidence via video-link. On 12 November 2021, she filed the application, which was heard as Summons No 5185 of 2021. Her application was premised on the fact that she would be required to travel from Guangzhou to Singapore to testify at trial, and she argued that this was not feasible due to the uncertain travel climate and the real and substantial risk of contracting COVID-19. She also contended that the defendants would not suffer prejudice because they would still have the opportunity to cross-examine her, and she was not a material witness.
The defendants opposed the application. They argued, first, that Wang was not “unable” to travel but rather unwilling. Second, they contended that they would suffer substantial prejudice if Wang did not attend in person, particularly because their counsel would be deprived of the ability to cross-examine her effectively in court. Third, they submitted that Wang had not proved that adequate and sufficient technical arrangements existed for remote testimony from Guangzhou.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was whether the court should grant leave under s 62A of the Evidence Act for a witness outside Singapore to give evidence via live video-link. Although s 62A(1)(c) was satisfied because Wang was outside Singapore, the court still had to determine whether, on the facts, it was “expedient in the interests of justice” to do so, having regard to the circumstances listed in s 62A(2).
Within that overarching issue, the court had to address at least three sub-questions. The first was whether Wang was genuinely “unable” to travel to Singapore to give evidence, as opposed to being unwilling due to inconvenience or general pandemic concerns. The second was whether the defendants would be unfairly prejudiced by remote testimony, including the practical realities of cross-examination and assessment of credibility. The third was whether the administrative and technical facilities and arrangements at the remote location were adequate to ensure a fair trial process.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The judge began by restating the general principle that witnesses must physically be in court to testify. This principle was linked to the court’s duty to ensure fairness and the legitimacy of the adjudicative process. The court then identified s 62A as a statutory exception that permits evidence by live video or live television link in specified circumstances, including where the witness is outside Singapore (s 62A(1)(c)). However, the exception is not automatic: the court must still be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice, and must consider the factors in s 62A(2).
In interpreting the statutory language, the court relied on the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another [2020] 1 SLR 555. In particular, the Court of Appeal held that s 62A(2)(a) does not cover situations where the witness is able but unwilling to attend. The word “unable” implies a lack of choice. Accordingly, Wang’s reasons for not travelling had to relate to circumstances outside her control. This interpretive approach framed the court’s analysis of both the travel uncertainty and the COVID-19 risk.
On the first reason—uncertain travel climate—the judge was not satisfied that Wang had shown circumstances outside her control preventing travel. Wang pointed out that there were no direct flights between Guangzhou and Singapore scheduled for the relevant period. Yet the judge noted that Wang’s own submissions acknowledged that indirect travel was possible, albeit with longer travel time and multiple stopovers. The court treated the existence of an indirect route as evidence that Wang was indeed able to travel, even if inconvenient. In that respect, the judge applied the reasoning in Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Ching and others [2018] 4 SLR 29 and Anil Singh, where the courts distinguished between genuine inability and practical difficulty.
On the second reason—risk of contracting COVID-19—the judge similarly found the evidential foundation insufficient. The court accepted that COVID-19 created disruptions, but it cautioned against “blindly citing” the pandemic as a reason for remote testimony. The judge observed that the pandemic had been ongoing for over two years, and the situation had stabilised compared to the early period when uncertainty was more acute. More importantly, the court required precise facts explaining why the witness was unable to testify physically. Generalised assertions about pandemic-related travel disruptions were not enough.
Regarding health risk, the judge held that the “substantial risk” argument did not translate into legal “inability” absent evidence that Wang had health-related issues that would put her at risk of serious complications if she contracted COVID-19. In other words, the court treated the risk of infection as relevant only if it was tied to a concrete vulnerability or circumstance beyond the witness’s control. Without such evidence, the risk meant Wang was unwilling, not unable, to make the trip.
Wang also relied on a district court decision, Chua Eng Kok (Cai Rongguo) v Douglas Chew Kai Pi [2021] SGDC 159. The judge commented that the passage Wang cited appeared to have been taken out of context. In that case, the district judge had dismissed the application and the defendant had been expected to physically attend to testify. The High Court therefore declined to treat the district court’s pandemic-related observations as determinative of the outcome in Wang’s case. The High Court’s approach underscores that pandemic-era reasoning must be read carefully in context and must still satisfy the statutory requirements in s 62A.
Although the extract provided truncates the remainder of the judgment, the structure of the grounds indicates that the judge also addressed the other s 62A(2) factors: whether any party would be unfairly prejudiced and whether adequate administrative and technical facilities were available for remote testimony. The court’s dismissal reflects that, on the evidence before it, Wang did not meet the threshold for leave. In particular, the court was not persuaded that the defendants would be protected from unfair prejudice, and Wang had not established the technical arrangements with sufficient clarity to ensure the integrity of remote cross-examination and witness assessment.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed Wang’s application for leave under s 62A of the Evidence Act for her to give evidence via video-link. The practical effect was that Wang would be required to attend and testify physically in Singapore, subject to the trial timetable and any further case management directions.
The decision also serves as a procedural checkpoint: even where a witness is outside Singapore and remote testimony is technologically feasible, the court will scrutinise whether the statutory conditions—especially “unable” rather than “unwilling”—are satisfied, and whether fairness to the opposing party is preserved.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee is significant for practitioners because it clarifies how s 62A should be applied in non-criminal proceedings where a witness is abroad. The case reinforces that the statutory exception to physical testimony is not meant to accommodate convenience or general pandemic concerns. Instead, the court requires concrete, evidence-based reasons showing that the witness is genuinely unable to travel, consistent with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in Anil Singh.
For litigators, the decision highlights the evidential burden in remote testimony applications. Applicants should expect the court to ask: (1) what specific circumstances outside the witness’s control prevent travel; (2) whether health risks are supported by medical or factual evidence rather than general fear of infection; (3) whether the remote setting can support reliable testimony and effective cross-examination; and (4) whether remote testimony would create unfair prejudice. The case therefore informs how to draft affidavits and submissions, and what supporting documents (for example, medical evidence, travel constraints with specificity, and technical assurances) may be necessary.
From a broader jurisprudential perspective, the judgment ties remote testimony to the legitimacy of the justice process. The court’s opening reference to R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy underscores that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. While remote hearings can be beneficial, Wang Xiaopu demonstrates that the court will balance efficiency and practicality against the foundational requirements of fairness and the appearance of justice.
Legislation Referenced
- Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), s 62A (Evidence through live video or live television links)
Cases Cited
- R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
- Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another [2020] 1 SLR 555
- Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and another [2019] SGHC 284
- Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Ching and others [2018] 4 SLR 29
- Chua Eng Kok (Cai Rongguo) v Douglas Chew Kai Pi [2021] SGDC 159
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHC 54 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.