Agreed Bundle
Research findings:
Case: Jaafar Shaari & Siti Jama Hashim v Tan Lip Eng & Anor
Facts: The issue here is regarding the police report that was in Part II of the agreed bundle. It was agreed between the parties that Part II of the agreed bundle of documents would consist of documents in which formal proof was dispensed with but the contents of which were not admitted. The respondents’ solicitors wrote a letter to the appellant’s solicitors stating ‘ we suggest that the police report… be tendered though its maker dispensing with formal proof”
Held: Appeal was allowed
Gopal Sri Ram (Judge)
Where a document is included in an agreed bundle without any qualification, then no question as to its formal proof arises and its contents may be relied upon to establish a fact in issue. Conversely, if the agreement between the solicitors was only to dispense with formal proof of the making of document, then contents of the document may NOT be used.
Points to note in the judgment
In the absence of any express condition regarding the inclusion of any of the documents in the agreed bundle of the documents, Judge Peh Swee Chin opined that:
1. Agreed BOD means that the documents therein are AUTHENTIC and do exist, therefore there is no need to proof the authenticity of the document by calling the makers etc 2. The truth of the contents of any of the documents found in the agreed bundle of documents is always NOT admitted unless the contrary is indicated directly/indirectly. 3. The documents in the BOD does not form automatically a part of the evidence of the case BUT any such documents does become part of such evidence if it is a) read/referred to by either of the parties (at length/ in a briesfest mention) b) examination of any witness c) in submission at any stage d) or unilateral drawing of court’s to it 4. The truth of the contents in the documents is determined by court. Similarly, for the question of
Case: Jaafar Shaari & Siti Jama Hashim v Tan Lip Eng & Anor
Facts: The issue here is regarding the police report that was in Part II of the agreed bundle. It was agreed between the parties that Part II of the agreed bundle of documents would consist of documents in which formal proof was dispensed with but the contents of which were not admitted. The respondents’ solicitors wrote a letter to the appellant’s solicitors stating ‘ we suggest that the police report… be tendered though its maker dispensing with formal proof”
Held: Appeal was allowed
Gopal Sri Ram (Judge)
Where a document is included in an agreed bundle without any qualification, then no question as to its formal proof arises and its contents may be relied upon to establish a fact in issue. Conversely, if the agreement between the solicitors was only to dispense with formal proof of the making of document, then contents of the document may NOT be used.
Points to note in the judgment
In the absence of any express condition regarding the inclusion of any of the documents in the agreed bundle of the documents, Judge Peh Swee Chin opined that:
1. Agreed BOD means that the documents therein are AUTHENTIC and do exist, therefore there is no need to proof the authenticity of the document by calling the makers etc 2. The truth of the contents of any of the documents found in the agreed bundle of documents is always NOT admitted unless the contrary is indicated directly/indirectly. 3. The documents in the BOD does not form automatically a part of the evidence of the case BUT any such documents does become part of such evidence if it is a) read/referred to by either of the parties (at length/ in a briesfest mention) b) examination of any witness c) in submission at any stage d) or unilateral drawing of court’s to it 4. The truth of the contents in the documents is determined by court. Similarly, for the question of