JAMES P. DOSSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DALE DOSSEY & Anor

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 39 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), Evidence Ordinance, and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHCR 39 High Court Registrar 23 September 2026 HC/OA 884/2025 26 min read

5 cases cited (2 SG, 3 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	23 September 2026
Judge	Leo Zhi Wei
Charges / claim	Evidence, International Law, Civil Procedure
Counsel	Drew & Napier LLC, Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, Prolegis LLC, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Chua Ying Ying Erin, Johannes Hadi, Nicole Therese Lim Su Anne, Sim Yu Hui Stephanie, Tang Yuan Jonathan, Tay Hong Zhi Gerald, Woo Shu Yan

Source: [2026] SGHCR 39, High Court Registrar, decided 23 September 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 14 October 2026.

Catchwords

Evidence — Witnesses — Attendance — Compelling attendance of witness to take evidence for foreign proceedings International Law — Conventions — Obligations under the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters Civil Procedure — Witnesses — Party in foreign proceedings applying for examination of witness before private examiner – Evidence (Civil Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed)

Practice Areas

Evidence International Law Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Leo Zhi Wei Delivered

Counsel (11)

Drew & Napier LLC Firm Eugene Thuraisingam LLP Firm Prolegis LLC Firm Charlene Wee Swee Ting Counsel for the third party Chua Ying Ying Erin Counsel for the applicant Johannes Hadi Counsel for the third party Nicole Therese Lim Su Anne Counsel for the applicant

Sim Yu Hui Stephanie Counsel for the third party

Tang Yuan Jonathan Counsel for the third party Tay Hong Zhi Gerald Counsel for the applicant Woo Shu Yan Counsel for the applicant

Parties (5)

Asian Gas Partners, Ltd Third Party

Dossey & Jones, PLLC Applicant

Christian Marcel Joseph Vinson Third Party

James P. Dossey Applicant

Philippe Emanuel Mulacek Third Party

Case Significance

Re Dossey, James P (individually and as the executor of the estate of Dossey, Dale, deceased) and another (Mulacek, Philippe Emanuel and others, non-parties) [2026] SGHCR 39 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by AR Leo Zhi Wei, with grounds delivered on 23 September 2026 after a hearing on 1 October 2025. In Originating Application No 884 of 2025, the Applicants sought the oral deposition of Mr Vinson in Singapore for Texas proceedings, under the Evidence (Civil Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1979 and a Letter of Request dated 8 May 2025. The issues were whether a private examiner or the Registrar should preside, video recording, the governing rules and whether US counsel could examine. Mr Colin Seow was appointed private examiner, video recording was allowed, Singapore law governed, and only Singapore counsel could examine.

[2026] SGHCR 39 explained

JAMES P. DOSSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DALE DOSSEY & Anor ([2026] SGHCR 39) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 23 September 2026. It is categorised under Evidence, International Law, and Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGHCR 39 about?

JAMES P. DOSSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DALE DOSSEY & Anor ([2026] SGHCR 39) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Evidence — Witnesses — Attendance — Compelling attendance of witness to take evidence for foreign proceedings”, “International Law — Conventions — Obligations under the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters”, and “Civil Procedure — Witnesses — Party in foreign proceedings applying for examination of witness before private examiner – Evidence (Civil Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed)”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHCR 39 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), Evidence Ordinance, and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The General Division of the High Court dealt with an application to take the oral deposition in Singapore of Mr Christian M. Vinson for civil proceedings in the 457th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, under a Hague Convention Letter of Request. The AR appointed Mr Colin Seow as private examiner and permitted video recording. Singapore law was to govern the examination, with specified Texas rules added, and only Singapore counsel could examine, while US counsel could attend and observe.

What was Re Dossey [2026] SGHCR 39 about?

It concerned an application under the Evidence (Civil Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1979 for Mr Vinson to give oral evidence in Singapore for civil proceedings in Texas, pursuant to a Letter of Request dated 8 May 2025.

Could US counsel examine the witness in [2026] SGHCR 39?

No. The AR held that examining witnesses in Singapore-governed proceedings is an act under s 32 of the Legal Profession Act 1966 reserved for qualified lawyers, so only Singapore counsel could examine, while US counsel could attend and observe.