WHEN AFFIDAVITS COME BACK TO BITE: TEO HAN SIANG V LIM ENG KEONG [2026] SGHCR 12

In Teo Han Siang v Lim Eng Keong [2026] SGHCR 12 (“Teo v Lim“), the General Division of the High Court struck out a S$401,308.22 claim as an abuse of process and in the interests of justice where the Claimant’s suit flatly contradicted his own earlier sworn affidavits in separate Family Justice Courts (“FJC“) proceedings. The decision is notable for articulating, for the first time, a structured framework for dealing with litigants who seek to resile from their own affidavit evidence.

The Facts in Brief

The Claimant, Mr Teo, sued Mr Lim in HC/OC 51/2025 to recover S$250,000 (two transfers in May and September 2019) plus interest, pleading that these were loans to fund Mr Lim’s personal “land-flipping” investments in Lombok, Indonesia. Mr Lim’s defence was that the sums were not loans at all, but investments that Mr Teo voluntarily placed with him for Indonesian land projects, with full appreciation of the attendant risks.

Crucially, in earlier FJC divorce proceedings, Mr Teo had already filed multiple affidavits, including an Affidavit of Assets and Means (“AAM“) and two further ancillary matters affidavits, in which he described the same S$250,000 as his own investments made through Mr Lim, expressly asserting that “there was no loan … due and owing” from Mr Lim to him. Those affidavits were central to Mr Lim’s striking-out application, but Mr Teo initially refused to produce them, necessitating a series of production applications under O 11 ROC 2021 before they were finally disclosed in redacted form.

The Procedural Path: From Striking Out to Production Orders

Mr Lim applied in SUM 1011/2025 to strike out Mr Teo’s Statement of Claim under O 9 r 16(1) ROC 2021, relying first on his own FJC affidavit and his understanding that Mr Teo’s FJC affidavits would corroborate the investment characterization. At an early hearing, the Assistant Registrar declined to short‑circuit the ROC 2021 framework by compelling production through the Court’s general powers under O 3 r 2 or by ad hoc inspection: the proper route was a specific production application under O 11.

Mr Lim then filed successive applications for production (SUM 1504/2025 and SUM 2629/2025), resulting in orders compelling Mr Teo to produce (in redacted form) all affidavits in the FJC proceedings that dealt with the disputed S$250,000. Mr Teo’s explanation for omitting two of the affidavits from his initial response – that he had “forgotten” about them – was expressly noted and rejected as unsatisfactory.

Once the full suite of FJC affidavits was before the Court, the striking-out application was argued on the basis of the stark inconsistency between Mr Teo’s sworn evidence in the FJC proceedings and his pleaded loan claim in OC 51/2025.

The Core Question

By the time of the second hearing of SUM 1011, the dispute had crystallized into a single question: Should Mr Teo be allowed to pursue a claim premised on facts that fundamentally contradict what he previously swore on affidavit in another Court? The Assistant Registrar answered in the negative and struck out the claim both as an abuse of process and in the interests of justice.

The Court’s Analytical Framework

1. Abuse of Process under O 9 r 16(1)(b)

The Court situated the case within the broader doctrine of abuse of process, rather than technical doctrines of approbation and reprobation or waiver by election. Building on Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin and the Court of Appeal’s decision in BWG v BWF 1 SLR 1296, the Court reaffirmed that:

• “Abuse of process” is broadly framed and rooted in protecting the integrity of the judicial process, preventing litigants from using its machinery oppressively or in bad faith;
• Adopting inconsistent positions in litigation can itself constitute abuse, especially where a litigant seeks to “have his cake and eat it” by taking incompatible stances in different fora.

However, Teo v Lim goes a step further by focusing on inconsistency arising specifically from affidavit evidence.

1. Affidavits as “Solemn Statements of the Truth”

The Court emphasised the special status of affidavits: they are sworn or affirmed statements presented to the Court as the truth (or as “true to the best of [the deponent’s] knowledge, information and belief”), and they play a central role in the Court’s fact‑finding function. False or opportunistically crafted affidavit evidence is not a mere procedural irregularity; it risks a “deception of the Court”, language the Assistant Registrar drew from Law Society of Singapore v Chung Ting Fai.

Against this backdrop, the Court held that where a litigant attempts to resile from his own earlier affidavit evidence and to advance a fundamentally inconsistent factual narrative in later proceedings, the abuse lies not only in inconsistency but in the departure from what he has already solemnly affirmed as the truth.

“ .the abusiveness would seem to lie in the fact that the party’s present conduct is inconsistent with his earlier affirmation to the court, on affidavit, that a fundamentally different version of evets was true”. (para 44) 

1. The Six‑Factor Test

To guide future cases, the Assistant Registrar set out a structured six‑factor framework for when a claim based on a new factual narrative may be struck out because it contradicts a party’s prior affidavits:

1. The earlier affidavit concerns the same subject matter as the later proceedings.
2. The affidavit was made by the same party now seeking to depart from it.
3. The relevant facts were within that party’s knowledge at all material times.
4. The earlier assertions are fundamentally inconsistent and incompatible with the position now advanced.
5. The party offers no cogent explanation for the change of position; and .
6. There is no exceptional policy consideration making it more unjust to bar the party than to allow him to proceed.

Where these factors are present, the Court may treat the later claim as an abuse of process and strike it out under both O 9 r 16(1)(b) and (c) ROC 2021. The Assistant Registrar stressed that this remains a fact‑sensitive inquiry; not every inconsistency will warrant striking out.

Application to the Facts

All six factors were satisfied on the facts of Teo v Lim:

The subject matter (the same S$250,000 and its legal character) was identical.

• The FJC affidavits were Mr Teo’s own.
• The underlying events were always within his personal knowledge.
• His FJC affidavits repeatedly stated that the sums were investments and that no loan was due; the High Court claim was premised on the opposite.
• His explanation – that the classification “did not matter” for matrimonial purposes and that he had labelled the sums as investments “for convenience” – was rejected as demonstrating “a disregard for the truth and a clear lack of understanding of the significance and seriousness of affidavit evidence”.
• No countervailing public policy consideration (such as an illegality concern of the type considered in BWG v BWF) justified allowing the inconsistent claim to proceed.

Mr Teo’s attempts to rely on contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and a bank statement describing a S$15,000 payment as “Allen Loan Repayment” did not cure the problem. The Court held that those materials could not displace Mr Teo’s own sworn narrative in the FJC affidavits, which were affirmed after many of the messages and after the S$15,000 payment. In other words, having already given the Court a solemn account of events, Mr Teo could not later use informal messages and banking labels to rewrite that account without a cogent explanation.

Result: Claim Struck Out, Indemnity Costs Awarded

The Court struck out Mr Teo’s entire claim under:

• O 9 r 16(1)(b) ROC 2021 – abuse of process; and
• O 9 r 16(1)(c) ROC 2021 – interests of justice.

Mr Teo’s conduct in resisting production of his FJC affidavits right up to opposing the production applications was treated as aggravating the abuse. Indemnity costs were ordered against him both for the striking‑out application and for the underlying suit.

Practical Takeaways for Practitioners

1. Affidavit Evidence is Not a Free Hit

Litigants (and their counsel) should expect to be held to factual positions advanced on affidavit, even if those affidavits were filed in different proceedings and before a different Court. Affidavits are not a convenient advocacy tool to be reshaped later; they are solemn statements intended to assist the Court in finding the truth.

2. Striking Out Can Be a Front‑End Remedy for Inconsistent Affidavit Narratives

Teo v Lim confirms that where a claimant’s case is built on a factual narrative that directly contradicts their prior sworn affidavits, the appropriate remedy may be a striking‑out application rather than allowing matters to proceed to trial. This can significantly reduce wasted costs and judicial time.

3. Production Strategy Matters

The judgment underscores that parties seeking to rely on earlier affidavits in other proceedings must invoke the ROC 2021 production regime (O 11) in a timely way, rather than asking the Court to shortcut the rules under general “interests of justice” powers. Conversely, a party who resists production of patently relevant affidavits risks a finding that such resistance aggravates the abuse of process and justifies indemnity costs.

4. Explanations for Inconsistency Must Be Cogent and Substantive

An assertion that the earlier characterisation “did not matter” in the prior proceedings or was adopted “for convenience” is unlikely to suffice. Where a party seeks to correct or depart from earlier affidavit evidence, practitioners should ensure any change is grounded in new information, an identified earlier mistake, or other objectively cogent reasons – and that the explanation is fully and candidly put before the Court.

5. Watch for Cross‑Forum Inconsistencies

For litigators acting either in commercial or family disputes, Teo v Lim is a reminder to scrutinise clients’ prior affidavits across forums (FJC, State Courts, High Court, arbitration support applications) early in the case. Hidden inconsistencies can be outcome‑determinative, and may either furnish a powerful striking‑out ground or, for your own client, require early remedial steps and careful advice.

 

Parwani Law LLC

This article is intended as general commentary and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on the published grounds of decision in Teo Han Siang v Lim Eng Keong [2026] SGHCR 12

Parwani Law LLC is a Singapore litigation boutique focused on commercial and civil disputes. In this matter, Mr Vijai Parwani led the defence from inception, identifying the critical inconsistency in the Claimant’s earlier sworn evidence, navigating multiple production applications, and achieving a full strike-out with indemnity costs well before trial.

If you are facing a claim that you believe is inconsistent with the Claimant’s earlier sworn positions, or if you need strategic advice on whether a striking out application is appropriate in your circumstances, we welcome your enquiry.