Interactive Digital Finance Ltd v Credit Suisse AG [2023] SGHC 198
Significance: Chua Lee Ming J held that under the 2021 Rules of Court (“ROC”), the court has the power to direct at a Case Conference, disclosure under the equivalent of a Notice to Produce procedure under the 2014 ROC.
The rules stipulating the Notice to Produce (“NTP”) procedure under the 2014 ROC are not found in the 2021 ROC. The NTP procedure is for production of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits for inspection and to take copies thereof.
In this case, the 1st defendant served an NTP on the claimants in the form prescribed under the 2014 ROC. The claimants refused to produce the documents. The 1st defendant’s lawyers wrote to court to request directions on the NTP and to extend time to file its defence. The Assistant Registrar (“AR”) on the case held a case conference and then directed the claimants to provide their response to the NTP and produce the documents referred to in the statement of claim and that was subject to the claim against the 1st defendant, and extended time for the 1st defendant to file its defence. The claimants then filed an appeal against the AR’s directions.
The claimants argued that the AR could not make the order for production of documents per the NTP because there was no more NTP procedure under the 2021 ROC and an application for production of documents had to be made as part of the Single Application Pending Trial (“SAPT”).
The Court held that under O 11 r 4 of the 2021 ROC, the court had the power to order a party to disclose to the other party documents referred to in pleadings before the other party files its Defence (or other pleadings). The principle underlying the NTP procedure was that the requesting party should be conferred the same advantage as if the documents referred to had been fully set out in the pleadings: SK Shipping Co Ltd v IOF Pte Ltd [2012] SGHCR 14 (“SK Shipping”) at [16] (see [30]-[34]).
Further, the Court had the power to order such disclosure under O 3 r 2(2) of the 2021 ROC as this was consistent with the ideals in O 3 r 1 to ensure justice was done, facilitate expeditious proceedings and achieve fair and practical results suited to the needs of the parties. It would thus not require the other party to file an application or seek the court’s direction or approval to make an application before the SAPT.
Therefore, the Court held that a party that requires production of documents referred to in pleadings needs only to make a written request. The party requested should produce such documents unless it is disputed that the documents requested are documents that are referred to in the relevant pleadings: [38].
https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Portals/0/Docs/Judgments/2023/[2023]%20SGHC%20198.pdf